A Cursory Glance Through the Book, "Bible Shockers!"

Bill Ross sent me his book Bible Shockers, which I received today along with several books Andrew Atkinson sent me. Bill sent me the book for a possible review. I promised him I would review it, but I didn’t promise him I would read all of it. Let me tell you why, and it’s not because it’s a bad book. It may be that I want to get on reading the other better books I have on my plate. I'll probably keep it for a Bible reference from time to time.

I began reading it but the more I read it, the more I skimmed it, until that’s all I was doing, skimming through it, which probably has more to do with his approach than my merely wanting to get on reading the other books.

What is he doing in this book? In his words: “I will present many of the more shocking discoveries in a somewhat cursory way, but each observation deserves a separate book to handle objections. I do try to present the reader with enough data to assess these observations or directions to pursue further study.” (p. 4) He also says that the book is really an adjunct to his website, www.bibleshockers.com, and in his book he repeatedly asks his readers to prove him otherwise on that site, in its forums. Since I have not participated in his forums I can’t say how well he does in defending his arguments in his book. But he is absolute correct to describe it as a “somewhat cursory” approach to the issues. That’s why the more I read, the less I read, for I am interested in a more than cursory approach to the issues.

Who is his intended audience? He claims it will appeal to “people who already find themselves taking pains to understand the Bible, whether they be Bible students, Sunday School teachers, preachers, seminarians or just inquisitive, and whether they be Christians of any sect, or not.” (p. 4). With such an intended audience he would’ve been better off telling us who the book wouldn’t appeal to, and apparently it's not intended for people not interested in the Bible, like his wife, as he says. But I don't think it will appeal to people who are even somewhat well-read on these issues, especially seminarians and informed skeptics.

In the sections I read he offered some Bible verses on behalf of his views, but a cursory approach that mostly quotes the Bible could be bettered if he had at least offered a more comprehensive set of passages to show his points. But he didn't do this. He uses the Bible to show God was viewed essentially as “a man with supernatural powers,” and best described as a “supernatural national champion.” (pp. 7-16). He argues God did not create the universe out of nothing (pp. 17-27). He argues that Adam was made to look like God (“in his image”), and that God had other sons who also defected (pp. 33-38). While I do agree with him, again the cursory approach is uninteresting to me personally.

He argued that Jesus was a sinner, and talked about the sin of lusting in one’s heart over a woman. Ross wrote, “Could the son of God actually pull out his wonker and ‘slap the salami’?” He claims a human 30 year old male would surely lust after a woman. (pp. 39-48). His language here is probably too graphic and demeaning for Christians who may be interested in reading his book.

Ross also discounts the sufferings of Jesus: “I find that the evidence that his life was, as far as human lives go, a breeze.” On a suffering scale of one to a hundred his life “would come in at zero.” When looking at the sufferings of Jesus during his trial he says, “He was falsely charged, awake all night, and whipped. Compared to the generations of slaves in the United States, regularly whipped, etc, we should give this a 0.1, I guess." And although “crucifixion is not a picnic,” Ross rates the sufferings of Jesus on the cross at 4.5. He says such a death “was certainly worse than dying in one’s sleep, but it was a merciful death in comparison to the many thousands of Jews who died on Roman crosses after days of agony.” (pp. 48-53).

It was at this point I started mostly skimming the book. Anyone who treats the sufferings of another individual so carelessly in order to make his point about the religion he wishes to debunk surely has an axe to grind, and as such, it becomes harder to take him seriously. [sorry]

Still he makes some interesting points. He says Jesus is a terrorist because he will send plagues and terrors on the earth in the several passages. He argues from the Bible that sins aren’t paid for, that Paul wasn’t a Jew, that Christians do not go to heaven, that sinners don’t go to hell, that God cannot read your mind, that God does not love the world, that God approves of slavery, that every Christian denomination is heretical, and that there is no Bible. Since Bill comments here he might want to spell out for the reader what he means with these claims. As far as I can tell he’s using rhetoric to show that some Bible passages say things that other passages deny, and he’s claiming the Bible is one sided in its approach, and that Christians have misunderstood what the Bible says. This approach is interesting to me, and I like it, although I'd rather focus on what Christians actually believe today and debunk those claims since I'm not in the habit of telling Christians what they should believe.

When it comes to Bill’s credentials he tells a story similar to what Paul the apostle did when telling his dramatic conversion. Bill says, “isn’t that how religious authority works?” (p. 307) The parallel is that if Paul can be an authority based on his personal story, then so should Bill. I liked this and thought it was creative and provocative. I mean really, if Paul can get away with it and become a religious authority, then why can’t Bill?

Anyway, you can see for yourself. If you’d like to read “a somewhat cursory” approach to these issues including many Biblical quotations, and if you don't mind some occasional graphic language, then you may be interested in getting this book.

67 comments:

WoundedEgo said...

Thanks, John, for the review. As Hitchens says, "that was by far the most recent...!"

I won't comment on your comments except for your surprising offence taken for my callousness at the suffering of Jesus:

>>>...It was at this point I started mostly skimming the book. Anyone who treats the sufferings of another individual so carelessly in order to make his point about the religion he wishes to debunk surely has an axe to grind, and as such, it becomes harder to take him seriously. [sorry]...

It sounds to me that you are concerned that I might hurt Jesus' feelings, as if I should write as if at his wake, with him listening on, hurt!

This point in my book is not one I have heard anywhere else and it succinctly debunks Christianity, which hangs on his suffering being sufficient to offset the suffering of the whole world. It needs to be recognized that this notion is absurd.

In the scriptural account, does Jesus have a bad day before his trial? Did he bang his thumb with a hammer when he tried to hit a nail? He grew up in favor with God and man - the son of parents who loved him. He even had funds given by the astrologers when he was an infact. The ONLY recorded suffering in his life was:

* the difficulties associated with being an itinerant preacher. If the scriptures are to be believed, Paul had it way worse - what with being stoned to death, whipped repeatedly, shipwrecked, etc.

* his trial: um, well, he got smacked, and whipped, but he was still in pretty good shape afterwards, since he carried his cross, and had not a single broken bone. Compare this to a burn victim, Paul being stoned and whipped repeatedly. Compare this to my friend who recently fell out of a very high tree.

* his death. He was on the tree for THREE HOURS! Ever been through chemo? Been tortured by the Viet Cong? Had a mine blow your legs off? Had a doctor saw your leg off without anesthesia?

It is IMPORTANT that people recognize that the suffering of Jesus was not extraordinary.

If anyone wants to elaborate on his sufferings to show that they were super-human in some way, I'm all ears. But since they are plainly restricted to a "taste" of human suffering, they should take my words to heart, and not get all sentimental about the death of one Jew as worse than that of those many, many Jews who languished and died under Hitler, who's suffering dwarfed that of Jesus.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jon said...

Ego you understand the crucifixion as though it was the AMOUNT of suffering that Jesus endured that paid for the sins of mankind. Clearly such a notion is absurd. If it had anything to do with amount the amount would have to be infinite, and how could Jesus physically suffer infinitely?

The point of the crucifixion (no pun intended) is that Jesus suffered INNOCENTLY. If you wish to refute this argument I'm all ears.

In case you were wondering, no other human has suffered innocently. They might have suffered for crimes they didn't commit, but none of us are innocent of ALL crimes. And, in a moral sense, any flaw is an unacceptable one. At least this is what Christians believe.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>>Jon:...In case you were wondering, no other human has suffered innocently. They might have suffered for crimes they didn't commit, but none of us are innocent of ALL crimes...

If we can accept that the life and death of Jesus did not ivnlve any extraoridany suffering - in fact, basically a breeze compared to myriad other deaths (untreated tooth abcess, untreated ear ache...) then we rest Catholic-Protestant soteriology all on his alleged innocence...

But, as I point out in another chapter, Jesus was a sinner. Paul says that the death he died was death to his sin:

Romans 6:
10 For in that he [Jesus] died, he [Jesus] died unto sin once: but in that he [Jesus] liveth, he [Jesus] liveth unto God.
11 **Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin**, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Hebrews goes into this extensively and I show it clearly in my book in the chapter "Jesus was a sinner."

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

John W. Loftus said...

Bill, if you want to compare Jesus' sufferings to people who've suffered more than him, that's fine, but to say that anyone who suffered as Jesus suffered merits a 4.5 on a scale of 1 to 100 is just not being honest with what it's like to be beaten, whipped and crucified.

Jon said...

Jesus died to his sin, but it wasn't his. If you're suggesting that Paul thought Jesus guilty of sin you're going to have to write a much bigger book.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>>John:Bill, if you want to compare Jesus' sufferings to people who've suffered more than him, that's fine, but to say that anyone who suffered as Jesus suffered merits a 4.5 on a scale of 1 to 100 is just not being honest with what it's like to be beaten, whipped and crucified.

100% does not measure the death of Jesus against how WASPS die in peacetime in modern US, but against the most any human has ever suffered. You think then that he might out to be nearer 90% maybe?

Jesus suffered one night of abuse and three hours on the cross. Simply put, most of the thousands of Jews and others that died by crucifixion under Rome did so after days and nights of INCREASING agony on the stake, not 3 hours. Those are by far the easiest hours.

I call your attention to the Rwandan women who had their breasts cut off so they could not feed their babies, and with their hands cut off, they could not even pick them up to comfort them, nor pick up food or water.

Spending years in Auschwitz wasting away in the bitter can easily be demonstrated to be hundreds of Jesus' death:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=l7WmxmxGuzk

HERE IS MY RESPONSE. Those who magnify the suffering of Jesus, such as Mel Gibson, ***trivialize the deaths of others***. I am attempting to put the sufferings of his life and death in perspective and I think it is very FAIR to say that his sufferings and death were nowhere NEAR comparable to the nightmares of countless millions of humans.

Some point to his "mental suffering" - as if.

But here is how the chapter begins:

"There are many kinds of suffering in this world and measuring or comparing human suffering is sheer folly but there are clearly people who have lived lives that are evidently marked by a tremendous amount of visible suffering while others have evidently led relatively “cushy” lives. While many have made much of a couple of scripture verses to say that interpret to say that Jesus suffered in his life, I find the evidence that his life was, as far as human lives go, a breeze. More importantly, many, presuming that the death of Jesus was some kind of payment for sin and that his death substituted for the deaths and everlasting torment of millions of Christians, imagine a horrific death, filled with exaggerated cosmic suffering. In addition, in treatments like Mel Gibson's “The Passion” Jesus is made to endure superhuman suffering during his trial at the hand of “the f#$%ing Jews” as he likes to call them."

I admit right off that comparison is folly... but there needs to be some perspective and my numbers are, I think, legitimate.

One man's suffering of about 24 hours is said by Christians to have "paid the price" equivalent to billions of eternities of conscious torment in Hell. I don't think that adds up. It would not even tip the scale for the sufferings of the thieves next to him who most likely suffered for days.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

WoundedEgo said...

>>>Jon: Jesus died to his sin, but it wasn't his. If you're suggesting that Paul thought Jesus guilty of sin you're going to have to write a much bigger book.

Jesus "died to sin that he might live to God," and Christians "should do likewise." Should they "die for the sins of others that they might live to God?" That does violence to Paul.

After you (and John) have read my 332 page book, then you can tell me that I have not made my point.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

GordonBlood said...

Ugh... While I could go on about all the problems il just deal with Paul. To say that Paul simply based his credentials on saying he had authority (if im misreading this then ignore or correct me) then one has completely missed the boat. Paul studied some greek philosophy, was a student of the great Jewish rabbi Gamileil (im pretty sure thats mispelled, but he was a leading rabbi of the age) and Paul at least claims to have been visited by Jesus. If he truly was, that gives hima rediculous amount of authority. If he wasnt Paul was either completely insane or one of the few liars in history who lied to be persecuted.

GordonBlood said...

Hmmm having read woundedego's comment I felt it appropriate to write abit on the pain point. Wounded, at least for protestants the crosses power is not in the suffering Christ had but in the ressurection. Catholics have historically emphasized the suffering of Christ but, frankly, thats Catholics. Comparing painful experience to painful experience in some sort of "combined" sense seems to me absolutely rediculous, there is one pain and that is the pain that an individual feels. Now Jesus almost certainly did not feel as much pain as some people have historically but to read Paul as saying this really proves that you are completely missing the boat on this as I assume you are on many other topics. I think your amazon reviews speak themselves as to why im not going to go out and spend money on this.

John W. Loftus said...

GB you wouldn't have read his book anyway. Who are you trying to kid here?

WoundedEgo said...

>>>Gordon:Ugh... While I could go on about all the problems il just deal with Paul.

Gordon, have you read my book, or just John's comment (who said he did not get that far).

>>>To say that Paul simply based his credentials on saying he had authority (if im misreading this then ignore or correct me) then one has completely missed the boat.

You have completely missed the boat.

>>>Paul studied some greek philosophy,

Or maybe he caught some Greek theater? What are you referring to?

>>>was a student of the great Jewish rabbi Gamileil (im pretty sure thats mispelled, but he was a leading rabbi of the age)

Are you referring to Luke's account? I guess you also believe he had healing hankies? Raised the dead? Was stoned to death, then dragged out of the city (presumably to be tossed into Gehenna) and lived to tell the tale? OOOOH! WELL THEN OBVIOUSLY HE HAS AUTHORITY!!!!!! My bad for questioning such a man!

>>>>>and Paul at least claims to have been visited by Jesus. If he truly was, that gives hima rediculous amount of authority.

My point (and you clearly have not read the book, and clearly accept Acts as true) is that we are asked to accept Paul's testimony that he met Jesus when by his own accounting, he is the only one who actually encountered him. Have you ever noticed that holy men meet with God in private, like say Moses or Peter and John on the mountains, and then appeal to the encounters as "proof" that they speak for God?

>>>If he wasnt Paul was either completely insane or one of the few liars in history who lied to be persecuted.

Paul's alleged persecution by Jews is as unlikely as his alleged persecution of Jews. This was Rome. They had laws. A Roman citizen being stoned to death in the street, dragged out through the Roman guarded gates by a mob, and no one notices??

The whole account is laughably filled with appeals to the miraculous that clearly don't happen - exact "in Africa" (where I have been, and there were no miracles, just Christians dying of AIDS) and at Benny Hinn meetings (HAHAHAHAHAHAH).

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Joseph said...

Ok, I have to first say that Bill and I have gone rounds, but I really do like his candid observations about Paul. Namely that "we are asked to accept Paul's testimony that he met Jesus when by his own accounting, he is the only one who actually encountered him." Well, is it true or not? We are taking a big leap of faith here to believe Paul's story, or perhaps to even believe Luke's rendition of the story (the only one on record).

"Have you ever noticed that holy men meet with God in private, like say Moses or Peter and John on the mountains, and then appeal to the encounters as 'proof' that they speak for God?" Precisely! It was this very suspicion that eventually gave way to doubt. Another thing that just nagged away at me was how the ancient Israelites could see the most astounding miracles, yet still grumble and complain against God. I mean how stupid were they, really? Moses, even more so, for striking the rock when Yahweh said to speak to it (didn't he, more than anyone, know that you follow the Lord's instructions to the letter or die?). Stories like these just aren't convincing...and the Bible is packed with them. You have to WANT to believe them--they just don't stand on their own.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>Gordon:...Wounded, at least for protestants the crosses power is not in the suffering Christ had but in the ressurection. Catholics have historically emphasized the suffering of Christ but, frankly, thats Catholics...

Protestants have only been on the seen a few hundred years, but Catholics, who number billions, I think, have been around for 1600 years. "Passion plays" comprised the main gospel for much of those centuries - long before Anselm's "substitutionary atonement/satisfaction" theory that you mistakenly think is Biblical.

While Mel Gibson, the Catholic, produced "The Passion," it has been WILDLY embraced by Protestants as faithfully describing the suffering of Jesus, and more importantly, as having great import (since they regularly book theaters to ensure sinners see it).

I'm thinking he did not suffer more than 39 lashes - 40 if the soldiers were willing to risk going over the 40 stripe limit. Contrast that to Paul:

2Co 6:5 In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings;
2Co 11:23 Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft.
2Co 11:24 ***Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one.***

I'm thinking that puts Jesus' suffering to no more than 20 percent of Paul, who was stoned:

Ac 14:19 And there came thither certain Jews from Antioch and Iconium, who persuaded the people, and, having stoned Paul, drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead.

And what about the ones "swan through" - were they given anesthesia?

Heb 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented;

Jesus, however, learned obedience by the things he suffered:

Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

So, he dies to sin, and puts it all behind him when he raised, so the second time he appears it will be without sin:

Heb 9:28...shall he appear the second time [but this time] without sin unto salvation.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jason said...

2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

Hebrews 7:26 "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;"

1 Peter 1:19 "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:"

1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:"

1 John 3:5 "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

Seems pretty clear to me.

Brother Crow said...

Then he wasn't human, regardless of what the rag says, because "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23). And "there is none righteous, no not one." (Romans 3:10). Except Jesus, right? No, including Jesus, if there was a Jesus...oh yeh, Louis Farakahn is Jesus. What absolutely fricked up theology. It is so rational, this Christian religion, is it not?

Jason said...

That's right: except Jesus.

Jon said...

"Jesus 'died to sin that he might live to God,' and Christians 'should do likewise.' Should they 'die for the sins of others that they might live to God?'"

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!! 100%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(and just when I thought I might not have been getting through to you)

"After you (and John) have read my 332 page book, then you can tell me that I have not made my point."

Send me a copy. I would buy it but the only review I read was less than glowing.

zilch said...

Comparing painful experience to painful experience in some sort of "combined" sense seems to me absolutely rediculous, there is one pain and that is the pain that an individual feels.

Ego you understand the crucifixion as though it was the AMOUNT of suffering that Jesus endured that paid for the sins of mankind. Clearly such a notion is absurd. If it had anything to do with amount the amount would have to be infinite, and how could Jesus physically suffer infinitely?

This is a first: I agree with gordonblood and jon! Up to a point, anyway... Jon goes on to say:

The point of the crucifixion (no pun intended) is that Jesus suffered INNOCENTLY. If you wish to refute this argument I'm all ears.

In case you were wondering, no other human has suffered innocently.


A nice story, but why should I grant it more credence than, say, the story that Prometheus stole fire from the gods, and Zeus punished him by chaining him to a rock and sending an eagle to eat out his liver every day? Since Prometheus was immortal, his liver grew back every night, only to be eaten again the next day.

Now that's suffering! If we want to choose our gods based on how much they suffered, I would say that Prometheus gets the nod over Jesus. Not only that, but Prometheus gave us fire with no strings attached; and if we are to believe our fundamentalist friends, not believing in Jesus will get us more fire than we want.

Of course, Christians will say that Prometheus is a myth and Jesus is the truth. If only there were some evidence to support them- but there isn't.

John W. Loftus said...

Jon said...Send me a copy. I would buy it but the only review I read was less than glowing.

I said I liked Bill's approach on some of the topics he spoke about. I said I agreed with Bill on several issues in his book (the ones I read). My main complaint was that is was less than comprehensive and too cursory for me. That's "for me." I am very well-read on these issues. When you read a review you must understand where the author of the review comes from. I have read glowing reviews about some books from people on amazon who don't have much of a clue about the issues in the book.

YOU could learn something from Bill's book, I think. And the worker is worthy of his wages, no?

SadEvilTan said...

Hello fellow members, just been doing bit of browsing at the "Bible shockers!" postings,& have to say that parts of it was quite entertaining. It basically revolves around 'Jesus's' suffering/cricifixion' & how much pain he must have endured as a result,- Presumably he would have 'Succumbed' anyway, due to his "Inflictions" leading up to it - so while he was nailed to the cross, with the 'Masses' looking on surely the poor chap was as 'Good as dead' anyway!......
Let me make an analogy here regarding this issue: Say for instance a 'Lynch mob' were out to catch somebody,- Can picture pack of 'Bloodthirsty hounds' cornering their prey'- & after they tear it to pieces (How would you feel) what happens next?....I'll tell you what happens next, they either shoot it & put it out of it's misery or in the case of Jesus 'Make a prime example' of him, therefore sending out a clear message to his so-called followers!

WoundedEgo said...

>>>>Jason:2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Given the context, I think that a better translation than the KJV double accusative would be:

2Co 5:21 for him [God] who did not know sin [God] concerning us, committed an offence, that we may become the righteousness of God [not of Jesus] by the agency of him [Jesus].

The phrase "not know sin" refers back to the previous verses:

2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ [by the agency of Christ], reconciling the world unto himself, ***not imputing their trespasses unto them***; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

It may be a question:

"Did he who did not know sin concerning us commit an offence that we might become the righteousness of God by his agency?"

The identical phrase AND THOUGHT echoes again later by the same author in the same letter:

2Co 11:7 Have I **committed an offence*** [identical to "made him to be sin"] in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?


>>>>Hebrews 4:15 "For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

Note that it does not say "without sinning." This is a preposition and a noun, which in this context speaks of his CURRENT position - "without sin." "We do not have [PRESENTLY] a great high priest who can not be touched with our infirmities...but [who is PRESENTLY] without sin." If you look at the context, Hebrews is arguing that in order to qualify as a high priest, he HAD TO have shared our moral weakness:

Hebrews 5:
1 For **every** high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; **for that he himself also is compassed with [moral] infirmity**.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.

So, by taking the verse out of its context, and reversing its meaning, one is proof texting. Hebrews is arguing FOR his qualification BY his FORMER moral weakness (prior to suffering and learning obedience, and prior to dying to sin, and prior to obtaining everlasting release), present separation from sin and future return without sin.



>>>Hebrews 7:26 "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;"

Indeed. Hebrews argues that Jesus learned obedience through his suffering and "obtained permanent release [from sin and death]." This is Paul's teaching as well.



>>>>1 Peter 1:19 "But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:"

The first thing to notice about this verse is that the allusion Peter makes concerning the passover lamb is not to deliverance from *sin*, but rather deliverance from *Judaism*. Ie: "from the vain traditions received from your fathers." The lamb played no significant part in the sacrificial system, for which the most important animal was a living goat.

Secondly, the "silver and gold" were the items the Hebrews, by divine command, "borrowed" from the Egyptians and thus loot them:

Ex 3:22 But every woman shall borrow of her neighbour, and of her that sojourneth in her house, jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment: and ye shall put them upon your sons, and upon your daughters; and ye shall spoil the Egyptians.

Thirdly, the context refers to the time *between* leaving the "Egypt" of Judaism and the future promised land. During this time they had to keep the feast of passover. The question came up of those who were sojourning in a strange land, or defiled with blood. Should they keep the feast of passover? Moses checked with Yehovah and said, yes:

Numbers 9:
6 And there were certain men, who were defiled by the dead body of a man, that they could not keep the passover on that day: and they came before Moses and before Aaron on that day:
7 And those men said unto him, We are defiled by the dead body of a man: wherefore are we kept back, that we may not offer an offering of the LORD in his appointed season among the children of Israel?
8 And Moses said unto them, Stand still, and I will hear what the LORD will command concerning you.
9 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
10 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the LORD.
11 The fourteenth day of the second month at even they shall keep it, and eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.
12 They shall leave none of it unto the morning, nor break any bone of it: according to all the ordinances of the passover they shall keep it.
13 But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey, and forbeareth to keep the passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the LORD in his appointed season, that man shall bear his sin.
14 And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover unto the LORD; according to the ordinance of the passover, and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do: ye shall have one ordinance, both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land.

So Peter says:

* during your sojourn in the world, live worthily in fear, keeping the feast of passover
* know that you didn't leave your "Egypt" with silver and gold, but with more valuable blood
* this blood is like that of the unspotted and blameless lamb
* that lamb was taken out of Judaism - of the anointed one.
* the lamb was known before the founding of the lost community, but is now manifest through the believing community

This is all nicely restated in Hebrews:

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit [everlasting breath/endless life] offered himself [upon his ascencion] without spot to God [to serve as high priest in the sky], purge your conscience from dead works [deliver you from the activities of death=Judaism] to serve the living God?

In short, this refers to the ascended Jesus.


>>>1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:"

This refers to his uprightness in this situation, not in his being impeccable.


>>>1 John 3:5 "And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

"Is" is present tense. Believers likewise have no sin.


>>>Seems pretty clear to me.

Others are said to be "blameless" without it being misconstrued as "impeccable":

Lu 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

that atheist guy said...

Going back to an earlier comment by Jon, he said the crucifixion of Jesus is significant because Jesus was perfectly innocent. What about the millions of babies through history who have been born with painful genetic defects, starved soon after birth, or were killed by others? I know Christians believe in original sin, but I think such an idea is obviously absurd. I don't see how anyone could believe such an bizarre dogma.

Shygetz said...

I would also like to know how Jon defends this statement. What crimes are infants in the womb guilty of? Babes in arms? What crimes?

If you punt to original sin that all humans share, then Jesus shared it too and therefore didn't suffer innocently. Unless you believe Jesus wasn't really human. Is original sin present only in the male sperm? Then what about parthenogenetic human children? Does God have to add original sin? Is it moral to punish someone for sins (s)he didn't commit, and couldn't POSSIBLY commit?

Jason said...

Bill,

2 Cor 5:21 - The context can’t be God since God is incapable of sin. Jesus on the hand was capable of sin (hence Hebrews 4:14). No, the verse reads just fine as it is.

Hebrews 4:14 – You missed the part about “but was in all points tempted” [PAST TENSE]. The writer is making the point that even though Christ was tempted as we are, he didn’t sin.

1 Peter 1:19 - Actually, the first thing to notice about this verse is that Christ, who is the lamb, is without blemish and without spot. Christ was the perfect sacrifice because he was sinless.

“The lamb played no significant part in the sacrificial system, for which the most important animal was a living goat.” Numbers 28 and 29 both say you’re wrong.

Heb 9:14 - In short, this refers to the ascended Jesus.

No it doesn’t. Christ offered himself when he died on the cross, not when he ascended into heaven. Read Hebrews 7:27.

1 Peter 2:22 - This refers to his uprightness in this situation, not in his being impeccable.

What situation?

1 John 3:5 - Believers likewise have no sin.

Why did Christ instruct his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Luke 11:4) and how can we confess our sins if they're not really sins (1 John 1:9)

Others are said to be "blameless" without it being misconstrued as "impeccable".

Irrelevant. Who else in Scripture was able to offer himself as an unblemished, spotless sacrifice, condemn sin in the process, and then sit down at the right hand of God?

WoundedEgo said...

>>>2 Cor 5:21 - The context can’t be God since God is incapable of sin. Jesus on the hand was capable of sin (hence Hebrews 4:14). No, the verse reads just fine as it is.

But it is likely rhetorical. "Did God sin [by not reckoning our sin]?" And yes, if Jesus was capable of being tempted, then clearly he is not God. As he said "Why call me good? There is none good but God."

>>>Hebrews 4:14 – You missed the part about “but was in all points tempted” [PAST TENSE]. The writer is making the point that even though Christ was tempted as we are, he didn’t sin.

No, his point is that Jesus was qualified to be a high priest. To show this he shows:

* Jesus shared our moral weakness
* was tempted with homosexual thoughts, etc;
* can have compassion because he like other men, failed morally;
* learned obedience in his suffering
* died to sin
* was raised free from sin
* will, at his second appearance, be without sin

>>>1 Peter 1:19 - Actually, the first thing to notice about this verse is that Christ, who is the lamb, is without blemish and without spot. Christ was the perfect sacrifice because he was sinless.

You are confusing the release from Egypt with justification. Jesus was not an Aaronic sacrifice.

>>>“The lamb played no significant part in the sacrificial system, for which the most important animal was a living goat.” Numbers 28 and 29 both say you’re wrong.

Where specifically? The lamb appears in the offerings, but not in the sin offering, which is a goat:

Num 28:15 And one kid of the goats for a sin offering unto the LORD shall be offered, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering.

But clearly this is not the background of 1 Peter. He is obviously referring to the Exodus and the passover. Be very specific.

>>Heb 9:14 - In short, this refers to the ascended Jesus.
No it doesn’t. Christ offered himself when he died on the cross, not when he ascended into heaven. Read Hebrews 7:27.

Here is the Hebrews passage, with context:

26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, **separate from sinners**, and **made higher than the heavens**;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for **this he [Jesus] did once [when he died to sin]**, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law ***maketh men high priests which have [moral] infirmity***; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, ***who is consecrated for evermore*** [since his death to sin].

>>>1 Peter 2:22 - This refers to his uprightness in this situation, not in his being impeccable.
What situation?

In the situation of his unfair trial:

1 Peter 2:
21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

>>>1 John 3:5 - Believers likewise have no sin.
Why did Christ instruct his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Luke 11:4) and how can we confess our sins if they're not really sins (1 John 1:9)

Those who repent and who's sins are forgiven have no sin:

Ro 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.
Ro 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

The above verses are in the passage about Jesus dying to sin:

Romans 6:
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

When was the last time you heard that preached?

>>Others are said to be "blameless" without it being misconstrued as "impeccable".
Irrelevant. Who else in Scripture was able to offer himself as an unblemished, spotless sacrifice, condemn sin in the process, and then sit down at the right hand of God?

When Jesus sat down at the right hand, he was finally qualified to be priest because his sin and death were gone:

Heb 1:3 ...when he had made cleansing, sat down at the right hand of the majestic one up high.

It is there that he BEGINS his ministry of inercession:

Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

This is what Hebrews calls "meat" - I don't expect many to get it right. They stumble over Anselmism.

How do you expound this?:

Heb 5:
1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
7 **Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared**;
8 Though he were a Son, **yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered**;
9 And **being made perfect**, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

"Seems pretty clear to me."

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

zilch said...

Shygetz- I would love to read about human parthenogenesis, but not being a member of NCBI, all I can get is the title. I've heard about parthenogenesis in lizards (and lots of lower life forms), but I didn't know it was known in humans too.

Jon said...

"Going back to an earlier comment by Jon, he said the crucifixion of Jesus is significant because Jesus was perfectly innocent. What about the millions of babies through history who have been born with painful genetic defects, starved soon after birth, or were killed by others? I know Christians believe in original sin, but I think such an idea is obviously absurd. I don't see how anyone could believe such an bizarre dogma."

"I would also like to know how Jon defends this statement. What crimes are infants in the womb guilty of? Babes in arms? What crimes?"

None. I believe if they go anywhere it is to heaven. This is what all protestants I know of believe. Original Sin is a Catholic concept. As far as I know it is not biblically supported.

that atheist guy said...

Jon, then can you you say that Jesus isn't the only person in history to suffer innocently?

Jason said...

2 Cor 5:21 – Why would this verse be rhetorical? Paul is making a clear statement: Jesus didn’t sin. As the NKJV puts it “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us…”

Hebrews 4:14 – Yes he was showing that Jesus was qualified to be the high priest but that’s not the issue. Even though Jesus was tempted, he didn’t sin. “but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Christ WAS tempted yet he was WITHOUT sin because he didn’t given into the temptation.

1 Peter 1:19 – Jesus is referred to as a lamb without blemish or spot. Without blemish or spot means he was sinless. His blood redeemed mankind.

The lamb played no significant part in the sacrificial system, for which the most important animal was a living goat.

Wrong: Numbers 28:3,9,11 and Numbers 29:17,26

The lamb appears in the offerings, but not in the sin offering, which is a goat:

Wrong again: Lev 4:32

Heb 9:14 - Christ offered himself when he died on the cross, not when he ascended into heaven. Hebrews 7:27 “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

1 Peter 2:22 – So the instructions given in verse 21 (that is, to follow in Christ’s footsteps) are that believers should actively search out illegal trials where they can only be punished with death? I think not. The exhortation is to follow Christ's example by trying to lead a sinless life, as he did.

1 John 3:5 – I’ll ask again: Why did Christ instruct his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Luke 11:4) and how can we confess our sins if they're not really sins (1 John 1:9)?

Those who repent and who's sins are forgiven have no sin.

That’s right. Until they sin again.

When Jesus sat down at the right hand, he was finally qualified to be priest because his sin and death were gone.

Agreed. But then this has nothing to do with whether or not Christ sinned in his life. All you’re saying is that Christ was free of his mortality and sinful nature, which any Christian would happily agree with.

Heb 5:1 – There's nothing to expound. These verses don't talk about Christ sinning.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>Cor 5:21 – Why would this verse be rhetorical? Paul is making a clear statement: Jesus didn’t sin. As the NKJV puts it “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us…”

The word translated "know" does not mean "didn't [sin]" means "perceive":

Mr 15:45 And when he knew <1097> (5631) it of the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph.
Lu 9:11 And the people, when they knew <1097> (5631) it, followed him: and he received them, and spake unto them of the kingdom of God, and healed them that had need of healing.
Lu 12:47 And that servant, which knew <1097> (5631) his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.
Lu 12:48 But he that knew <1097> (5631) not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Joh 5:6 When Jesus saw him lie, and knew <1097> (5631) that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?
Joh 6:15 When Jesus therefore perceived <1097> (5631) that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.
Ac 23:6 But when Paul perceived <1097> (5631) 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.
Ro 1:21 Because that, when they knew <1097> (5631) God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew <1097> (5631) no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Ga 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived <1097> (5631) the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Ga 4:9 But now, after that ye have known <1097> (5631) God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?
Php 2:19 But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know <1097> (5631) your state.

What is the import that Jesus didn't perceive sin? In the passage, it is God who does not LOGIZWMAI - or "didn't count" our trespasses in order to reconcile the world to himself. Did he commit sin in this regard? So Paul:

2Co 11:7 Have I committed an offence in abasing myself that ye might be exalted, because I have preached to you the gospel of God freely?

Is God too indulgent?

>>Hebrews 4:14 – Yes he was showing that Jesus was qualified to be the high priest but that’s not the issue. Even though Jesus was tempted, he didn’t sin. “but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." Christ WAS tempted yet he was WITHOUT sin because he didn’t given into the temptation.

That is not what Paul or Hebrews says. They say that he "learned to obey through is suffering" and "he can have compassion toward those who are out of the way because he himself had moral infirmity" and "Jesus died to sin" and "being made perfect..." Jesus *became* qualified, not to become the perfect sacrifice, but to serve as a compassionate and faithful high priest, who ever lives.

>>>1 Peter 1:19 – Jesus is referred to as a lamb without blemish or spot. Without blemish or spot means he was sinless. His blood redeemed mankind.

It is referring to him after his deeath, resurrection and asencion, just as Hebrews does.

>>>The lamb played no significant part in the sacrificial system, for which the most important animal was a living goat.
Wrong: Numbers 28:3,9,11 and Numbers 29:17,26

Numbers 28:1-11, which I reproduce here is not part of the sin offerings. These were devotional:

1 ¶ And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Command the children of Israel, and say unto them, My offering, and my bread for my sacrifices made by fire, for a sweet savour unto me, shall ye observe to offer unto me in their due season.
3 And thou shalt say unto them, This is the offering made by fire which ye shall offer unto the LORD; two lambs of the first year without spot day by day, for a continual burnt offering.
4 The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even;
5 And a tenth part of an ephah of flour for a meat offering, mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil.
6 It is a continual burnt offering, which was ordained in mount Sinai for a sweet savour, a sacrifice made by fire unto the LORD.
7 And the drink offering thereof shall be the fourth part of an hin for the one lamb: in the holy place shalt thou cause the strong wine to be poured unto the LORD for a drink offering.
8 And the other lamb shalt thou offer at even: as the meat offering of the morning, and as the drink offering thereof, thou shalt offer it, a sacrifice made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
9 ¶ And on the sabbath day two lambs of the first year without spot, and two tenth deals of flour for a meat offering, mingled with oil, and the drink offering thereof:
10 This is the burnt offering of every sabbath, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering.
11 And in the beginnings of your months ye shall offer a burnt offering unto the LORD; two young bullocks, and one ram, seven lambs of the first year without spot;

Neither of these verse indicate any particular significance to the lambs, and do not relate them to the sin offering (thought the goats and bulls are):

17 And on the second day ye shall offer twelve young bullocks, two rams, fourteen lambs of the first year without spot:
26 And on the fifth day nine bullocks, two rams, and fourteen lambs of the first year without spot:

You see, lambs were cheap. Sheep were more costly - because they were more dear, and had to be cared for for years. So they were not appropriate for a sin offering. What you need to be looking at for the 1 Peter passage is the passover, but that was not a sin offering.

>>>The lamb appears in the offerings, but not in the sin offering, which is a goat:
Wrong again: Lev 4:32

Yes, a lamb could provide an alternate to a goat for an unintentional sin every once in a while:

27 ¶ And if any one of the common people sin through ignorance, while he doeth somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and be guilty;
28 Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned.
29 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering.
30 And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar.
31 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.
32 And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish.
33 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering.
34 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar:
35 And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

When thanking God for cleaning you from leprosy (ie: it ran its course!) you could even get away with two pigeons:

Le 12:8 And if she be not able to bring a lamb, then she shall bring two turtles, or two young pigeons; the one for the burnt offering, and the other for a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement for her, and she shall be clean.

Mt 10:29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

Note also that the lamb was supposed to be a female. In other words, you are really grabbing at straws to make Jesus a sacrificial lamb.

>>>Heb 9:14 - Christ offered himself when he died on the cross, not when he ascended into heaven.

The KJV has "offered" but the word actually means to "lead." Here he clearly presents himself to God, and he did so when he was free from death:

Hebrews 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit [everlasting breath] offered [led] himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

>>>7:27 “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.”

EXACTLY! BINGO! You are getting better at this!

>>1 Peter 2:22 – So the instructions given in verse 21 (that is, to follow in Christ’s footsteps) are that believers should actively search out illegal trials where they can only be punished with death? I think not.
The exhortation is to follow Christ's example by trying to lead a sinless life, as he did.

No. Is that how you read it in context? The idea is to respond as he did:

23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

>>>1 John 3:5 – I’ll ask again: Why did Christ instruct his disciples to pray for forgiveness (Luke 11:4) and how can we confess our sins if they're not really sins (1 John 1:9)?

What is your point? That one is never delivered from one's sins?

>>>Those who repent and who's sins are forgiven have no sin.
That’s right. Until they sin again.

What is your point?

>>>When Jesus sat down at the right hand, he was finally qualified to be priest because his sin and death were gone.
Agreed. But then this has nothing to do with whether or not Christ sinned in his life. All you’re saying is that Christ was free of his mortality and sinful nature, which any Christian would happily agree with.

He was "made perfect" - he "learned obedience" - he "died to sin."

>>>Heb 5:1 – There's nothing to expound. These verses don't talk about Christ sinning.

Evasive...

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jon said...

"Jon, then can you you say that Jesus isn't the only person in history to suffer innocently?"

Well the way I do so is through a belief that would take quite a long time to explain so how about we save the trouble and you show me where you're going with this?

Jason said...

2 Cor 5:21The word translated "know" does not mean "didn't [sin]" means "perceive".

The word also means “come to know”. Jesus never “came to know” sin because he was sinless.

Hebrews 4:14 – Christ WAS tempted yet he was WITHOUT sin because he didn’t give into the temptation.

That is not what Paul or Hebrews says.

Yes it is: “but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

1 Peter 1:19 – Jesus is referred to as a lamb without blemish or spot. Without blemish or spot means he was sinless. It was his blood, through his perfect sacrifice, that redeemed mankind.

It is referring to him after his death, resurrection and ascension, just as Hebrews does.

Christ didn’t shed his blood after his resurrection.

Numbers 28:1-11, which I reproduce here is not part of the sin offerings. These were devotional.

You claimed lambs played “no significant part in the sacrificial system”. This statement is wrong and I’ve shown you why.

In other words, you are really grabbing at straws to make Jesus a sacrificial lamb.

John the Baptist called Jesus the ‘Lamb of God’ (John 1:29,36). Paul refers to Jesus as a lamb being “led to the slaughter” (Acts 8:32). Christ even refers to himself as a lamb (Rev. 5:6,8,12,13, Rev 6:1,16, 7:9,10,14,17, etc. etc.). It’s hard to miss. Christ was a lamb, and he was a lamb “without spot or blemish” because he was sinless.

Heb 9:14 - The KJV has "offered" but the word actually means to "lead." Here he clearly presents himself to God, and he did so when he was free from death.

Isaac wasn’t presenting himself to God after he was free from death. (Heb 11:17, James 2:21) Why would Jesus be any difference? Jesus offered himself when he died on the cross, not when ascended to heaven. Rom 4:25 “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” Jesus presented himself to God as a perfect, acceptable sacrifice for our sins and afterwards, was raised back to life.

Hebrews 9:14 - In the OT, the high priests had to continually offer sacrifices to God. The sacrifices were killed and the peoples’ sins forgiven via the shedding of blood. In the NT, Christ symbolically was the animal (the spotless lamb) and he was killed and the people’s sins were forgiven via the shedding of his blood. This is the whole relevance of baptism since believers are baptized into Christ’s death (Romans 6:3-4), not his ‘ascension to heaven’.

1 Peter 2:22Is that how you read it in context? The idea is to respond as he did.

No, it’s not how I read the context at all. It’s how I read the verses in tandem with your bizarre theory. If the idea is to respond as he did, and you say this sinless response occurred inside a single event, then obviously we can’t respond unless we’re in the same situation. That is, being in an illegal court faced with death.

However, since this is quite obviously wrong, the exhortation is to follow Christ's example by trying to lead a sinless life, as he did.

1 John 3:5 - What is your point? That one is never delivered from one's sins?

We’re delivered from the “wrath to come” (1 Thes 1:10) and the “power of darkness” (Col 1:13). While sin itself will continue, the power of sin is removed. That is, once we die (the wages of sin being death), we won’t stay dead. The righteous will be resurrected to eternal life.

Those who repent and who's sins are forgiven have no sin. That’s right. Until they sin again. What is your point?

That Jesus’ sacrifice didn’t take away our sinful human nature.

He was "made perfect" - he "learned obedience" - he "died to sin."

That’s right. Jesus was made perfect and died to sin because his sinful nature was removed.

Heb 5:1 – Which verses talk about Christ sinning?

that atheist guy said...

Jon wrote: "Well the way I do so is through a belief that would take quite a long time to explain so how about we save the trouble and you show me where you're going with this?"

I'm not really going anywhere with this. To recap: you objected to Woundedego emphasizing the amount of suffering Jesus experienced, saying the point was that he suffered innocently. You then wrote, "...no other human has suffered innocently." So I'm just saying I disagree with that.

Joseph said...

Let me see if I can help you out, there, Jason (since you like to avoid answering arguments too strong for you--as in the holocaust thread):

Hebrews 5:8, "Though he were a Son, ***yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.***" If he learned obedience, there must have been a time when he didn't know how to obey God perfectly. Those who don't obey God perfectly are sinners. Therefore, Jesus was a sinner.

Hebrew 5:9, "And ***being made perfect***, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." Jesus had to be "made perfect," implying that he was not perfect before. Those who are not perfect are sinners. Therefore, Jesus was a sinner.

(Good luck having a reasonable argument with this guy, Bill.)

WoundedEgo said...

>>>The word also means “come to know”. Jesus never “came to know” sin because he was sinless.

Hmm... so he was ignorant. This does not qualify him for anything. The plain meaning of the word has contextual significance and thus the reading is to be preferred over the unattested usage you prefer.

>>>Christ didn’t shed his blood after his resurrection.

I have shown that is irrelevant.

>>>Yes it is: “but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin."

The word "yet" was added by the "translators." Without it, it cannot say what the translators hope it to say. The preposition "away from" speaks of *where* he is, not to what he did or didn't do.

>>You claimed lambs played “no significant part in the sacrificial system”. This statement is wrong and I’ve shown you why.

I did not say that they played no part. They, or a pair of pigeons, are a great way of leaving a tip. But on the day of atonement, they do not appear.

>>>John the Baptist called Jesus the ‘Lamb of God’ (John 1:29,36).

The term "lamb of God" is similar to "God's kid" would be in our venacular. If you look at what John has in mind, he clearly is think of a violent leader, not a sacrifice. "Taking away the sin of the world" will be done by slaughtering sinners.

>>Paul refers to Jesus as a lamb being “led to the slaughter” (Acts 8:32).

This is an analogy of docility, irrelevant to sacrifice.

>>Christ even refers to himself as a lamb (Rev. 5:6,8,12,13, Rev 6:1,16, 7:9,10,14,17, etc. etc.). It’s hard to miss.

But easy for Christians to misunderstand. The lamb was violent - think of Sylvester Stallone in "Lamb-O" and you get the picture. This is not allusion to sacrifice.

>>>Christ was a lamb, and he was a lamb “without spot or blemish” because he was sinless.

That is not explicit in the text. What is explicit is that he was *made* perfect, that he *learned* obedience and that he *died to sin."

>>>Isaac wasn’t presenting himself to God after he was free from death. (Heb 11:17, James 2:21) Why would Jesus be any difference?

Irrelevant. Non sequiter.

>>>Jesus offered himself when he died on the cross, not when ascended to heaven.

Read the context carefully instead of proof texting:

Heb 9:
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building [ie: the temple in the sky];
12 Neither by [on the sacrificial basis of] the blood of goats and calves, but by [on the sacrificial basis of] his own blood he entered in once into the holy place [in the sky], having obtained eternal [everlasting] redemption [release].
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal [everlasting] Spirit [breath] offered [presented] himself without spot to God [in the sky], purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

>>>Rom 4:25 “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”

This in no way contradicts what Paul says later - that Jesus was dying to his own sin. It actually says "he died THROUGH our offences" not that he died "to pay for" them.

>>>Jesus presented himself to God as a perfect, acceptable sacrifice for our sins and afterwards, was raised back to life.

>>>Hebrews 9:14 - In the OT, the high priests had to continually offer sacrifices to God. The sacrifices were killed and the peoples’ sins forgiven via the shedding of blood.

No. God freely forgave. However, it was not apart from the shedding of the blood. The blood did not EFFECT forgiveness, it was merely an appeal for forgiveness - an expression of remorse.

>>>In the NT, Christ symbolically was the animal (the spotless lamb) and he was killed and the people’s sins were forgiven via the shedding of his blood.

You would want 14 female lambs just to say thank you. You would not expect sins to be paid for by a cheap lamb. Christians understand zero.

>>>This is the whole relevance of baptism since believers are baptized into Christ’s death (Romans 6:3-4), not his ‘ascension to heaven’.

Not a death of payment, but a death to sin. By now, you are no longer ignorant and are just dumping stupid stuff to be argumentative.

>>>>No, it’s not how I read the context at all. It’s how I read the verses in tandem with your bizarre theory. If the idea is to respond as he did, and you say this sinless response occurred inside a single event, then obviously we can’t respond unless we’re in the same situation. That is, being in an illegal court faced with death. However, since this is quite obviously wrong, the exhortation is to follow Christ's example by trying to lead a sinless life, as he did.

Ok, you are just being argumentative. You can't be that retarded.

>>>We’re delivered from the “wrath to come” (1 Thes 1:10) and the “power of darkness” (Col 1:13). While sin itself will continue, the power of sin is removed. That is, once we die (the wages of sin being death), we won’t stay dead. The righteous will be resurrected to eternal life.

So Christians are just sinners with a pass?

>>>That Jesus’ sacrifice didn’t take away our sinful human nature.

That is a bogus concept. Paul said that Christians, like Jesus, are "dead to sin." What does that mean?

>>He was "made perfect" - he "learned obedience" - he "died to sin."
That’s right. Jesus was made perfect and died to sin because his sinful nature was removed.

Umm... ok.

>>Heb 5:1 – Which verses talk about Christ sinning?

The whole passage argues this:

1 ¶ For ***every high priest*** taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 ***Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.***
3 And ***by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins***.
...
8 Though he were a Son, ***yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered***;
9 And ***being made perfect, he became*** the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Simply put, Christianity has its head waaaaay up its own ass since it can't understand:

* God
* Jesus
* justification

Or anything else.

The Anselmism you are arguing WAS NOT EVEN INVENTED UNTIL THE ELEVENTH CENTURY. Trinity, not until the FOURTH. The Protestant Bible, not until 1640! You are not contending for the faith once delivered, but for a late model religion that is nothing if not ignorant.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

WoundedEgo said...

A bit more about 2Cor 5:21...

I showed that "the one that didn't know sin" used the word for "perceive" and that this was not a meaningful phrase in the context except to refer to God who did not LOGIZWMAI the world's trespasses.

The other part of that sentence is equally strained. It is translated as "he made sin." The word pair appears several times, and clearly simply means "committed sin" as you can see here:

Joh 8:34 Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth <4160> sin <266> is the servant of sin <266>.

Jas 5:15 And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed <4160> sins <266>, they shall be forgiven him.

1Pe 2:22 Who did <4160> no sin <266>, neither was guile found in his mouth:

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth <4160> sin <266> transgresseth <4160> also the law: for sin <266> is the transgression of the law.

1Jo 3:8 He that committeth <4160> sin <266> is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth <4160> not commit sin <266>; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

So if the subject is God, then God committed sin. Translating this as "made him into sin" is both special linguistic pleading and **fruit loops**, even if you take it as just a figure.

John keeps telling me it is quixotic to try to correct Christian understanding, but this is my windmill...

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Shygetz said...

zilch--As far as I know, that article does not exist in electronic form. I just linked to the reference. The short story is, a series of case studies in England were examined in which pregnancies resulted when it was medically impossible for sperm to fertilize the egg, generally because of a complete obstruction at the time of fertilization. The authors carefully examined these cases, and concluded that a few of the 19 cases they examined were cases of human parthenogenesis.

jon: Well the way I do so is through a belief that would take quite a long time to explain...

I'm a fast reader.

...so how about we save the trouble and you show me where you're going with this?

You earlier said:

The point of the crucifixion (no pun intended) is that Jesus suffered INNOCENTLY...In case you were wondering, no other human has suffered innocently. They might have suffered for crimes they didn't commit, but none of us are innocent of ALL crimes.

Then when asked what crimes unborn infants and babes in arms commited, you said:

None. I believe if they go anywhere it is to heaven. This is what all protestants I know of believe. Original Sin is a Catholic concept. As far as I know it is not biblically supported.

So, you claim that Jesus' unique sacrifice is that he suffered innocently, which no other human has done, then you claim that other humans have suffered innocently. You can't have it both ways--pick one and stick with it.

Jason said...

Joseph,

Phl 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."

In Gethsemane, Christ prayed three times to have God "remove the cup" from him. In the end, Christ obeyed and died on the cross. This was the obedience referred to in Hebrews.

Second, you say "Jesus had to be "made perfect," implying that he was not perfect before. Those who are not perfect are sinners. Therefore, Jesus was a sinner." Wrong. Those who aren't perfect have an imperfect nature - that is they have the ability and desire to sin. Christ therefore wasn't perfect because he had the ability to sin. He was "corruptible". After his resurrection, he was made "incorruptible", his sinful nature was taken away. Christ was then 'made perfect'. It's no different then the transition that will happen to the righteous after judgment.

Thanks for your input.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>Phl 2:8 "And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross."
In Gethsemane, Christ prayed three times to have God "remove the cup" from him. In the end, Christ obeyed and died on the cross. This was the obedience referred to in Hebrews.

Jason, what were the "things that he suffered?" What does it mean to "learn obedience?"

>>>Second, you say "Jesus had to be "made perfect," implying that he was not perfect before. Those who are not perfect are sinners. Therefore, Jesus was a sinner." Wrong. Those who aren't perfect have an imperfect nature - that is they have the ability and desire to sin. Christ therefore wasn't perfect because he had the ability to sin. He was "corruptible". After his resurrection, he was made "incorruptible", his sinful nature was taken away. Christ was then 'made perfect'. It's no different then the transition that will happen to the righteous after judgment...

Does the Bible ever indicate that Jesus had a "divine nature" or a "corruptible nature" or, post-resurrection, a "new nature?" I find these concepts very modern and false.

I do think it is inescapably explicit that Jesus **died to sin** in order that he might "live to God". This is clearly what Hebrews and Paul have in mind. But we can do both:

* he "became obedient" through a conscious subjugation of his opposing will (not really how I read it, but OK)

* he **also** "learned" obediedience during the ordeal of the cross

Perhaps they describe the same thing as one long education since the ordeal begins in the garden and ends upon his death. But this does not make the issue go away. He became/learned obedience. He died to sin. He was made perfect. You resort to an unbiblical notion of a change of nature. The biblical writers give their own description:

* he learned/became obedient
* he died to sin
* he was made perfect

You are not just changing the term to "changed natures". You are undermining what is explicitly being taught. "Jesus died to sin - you should too." "Jesus now lives to God - you should too." NOT when your "nature is changed" - that is just Church talk - not biblical talk. That is a term invented to do violence to the meaning of the text with fabricated mumbo-jumbo.

"He died to sin" is an event that Paul is pointing to - an event you say never happened.

"He changed natures" - an event that Paul knows nothing about.

Jesus was a sinner. Now he is allegedly free from sin, living in the sky, apart from sin, and will appear the second time without sin.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jason said...

Let’s try something new.

What is baptism and what is it symbolic of?

Jason said...

This needs to be addressed:

Isaac wasn’t presenting himself to God after he was free from death. (Heb 11:17, James 2:21) Why would Jesus be any difference?

Irrelevant. Non sequiter.

It absolutely follows. If you’re going to claim that the word “offer” in Hebrews 9:14 means “to lead” and this in turn means that Jesus was presenting himself to God after his death, then “offer” must mean the same thing in another similar account of someone offering themselves. The question stands: Isaac wasn’t presenting himself to God after he was free from death (Heb 11:17, James 2:21). Why would Jesus be any difference?

As does this: I do think it is inescapably explicit that Jesus **died to sin** in order that he might "live to God".

I agree 100% but if you're looking for explicit proof that Jesus sinned, "died to sin" isn't it. Christ sacrificed himself to put away sin (Heb 9:26). Scripture never once says Jesus died because of HIS sins. Instead Jesus died to CONDEMN sin (Rom 8:3, Heb 9:26). Romans 5:8 says Jesus died for us (not for himself). 1 Cor 15:44 contrasts Adam with Christ, the first being sinful, the latter being sinless.

And this: "He changed natures" - an event that Paul knows nothing about.

• 2 Peter 1:4. Through the promises (not yet given), we might be partakers of the “divine nature”.

WoundedEgo said...

I think there is a lot you are leaving unanswered, Jason, but...

The ritual of dipping/hosing in water was not original to "Paul" (ie: those writing under that pseudonym) and clearly had an earlier meaning, but "Paul" says:

* for John, it symbolized repentance from sin, and identification with a yet future Christ:

Ac 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

* it was a symbol of death/burial with Jesus to sin (Christian-specific repentance) and resurrection to a new life - "dead to sin, alive to God"

Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

* identification with the one true God, the one true faith and the one true community:

Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

* participation in Christ's death and resurrection

Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Peter's figure is obscure to me. It seems to be saying that baptism is salvic - not because of the first part - repentance - but by the second - the resurrection wherein the believer is forgiven and has a clear conscience:

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jason said...

Why would being baptized into a sinner's death save sinners?

WoundedEgo said...

>>>The question stands: Isaac wasn’t presenting himself to God after he was free from death (Heb 11:17, James 2:21). Why would Jesus be any difference?

Abraham led Isaac up to the mountain but did not ever kill him. Thus killing is not the issue. The leading up is. James uses a different word.

But the point is not that the word cannot be used in situations where a sacrifice is involved but whether it must mean that, and whether it does in the context of the Hebrews passage, which it clearly does not. One can present gifts, prayers, sacrifices or oneself. Note:

YLT
Heb 12:7 if chastening ye endure, as to sons God **beareth Himself to you** [same word], for who is a son whom a father doth not chasten?

What, in your mind, is the significance of "through the eternal breath" in this passage?:

Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, **who through the eternal [everlasting] Spirit [breath]** offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

Let's put it another way... if you were not so desparate to find any shred of support for Anselmism, would you really have any problem whatsoever with reading this as referring to his, now that he is qualified, presenting himself for priestly service to God? Of course not. That is the thesis of Hebrews at the outset of the book:

Heb 1:
3 Who being the brightness of his [God's] glory, and the express image [exaggerated translation!] of his [God's] person, and upholding all things by the word of his [God's] power, when he had by himself purged our sins [literally, "when he had made purification" - the words "our sins" were ADDED by the "translators"], sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high [dependent on God for his authority];
4 ***Being made*** so much better than the angels [messengers], as he hath by inheritance **obtained** a more excellent name than they.
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day [not "eternally begotten!"] have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com




As does this: I do think it is inescapably explicit that Jesus **died to sin** in order that he might "live to God".

I agree 100% but if you're looking for explicit proof that Jesus sinned, "died to sin" isn't it. Christ sacrificed himself to put away sin (Heb 9:26). Scripture never once says Jesus died because of HIS sins. Instead Jesus died to CONDEMN sin (Rom 8:3, Heb 9:26). Romans 5:8 says Jesus died for us (not for himself). 1 Cor 15:44 contrasts Adam with Christ, the first being sinful, the latter being sinless.

And this: "He changed natures" - an event that Paul knows nothing about.

• 2 Peter 1:4. Through the promises (not yet given), we might be partakers of the “divine nature”.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>I agree 100% but if you're looking for explicit proof that Jesus sinned, "died to sin" isn't it.

The most explicit passage is the Hebrews passage where it is given as a prerequisite for high priests, and the reason that the priests made offerings for themselves before representing the people.

"Why call me good?"

"Neither do I condemn thee."

>>>Christ sacrificed himself to put away sin (Heb 9:26). Scripture never once says Jesus died because of HIS sins.

Pr 26:7 The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools.

How else is a believer to "likewise" die to sin and live to God in this life per Romans 6 and the figure of baptism?

>>>Instead Jesus died to CONDEMN sin (Rom 8:3, Heb 9:26).

The word "condemn" means "sentence" as in this case, "to give a death sentence to." Paul believed that sin "dwelled in one's members" - in the "flesh" (muscles) and that to really be free of sin, one's body had to be put to death. That is why he had to die to sin, and likewise, why the believer must die.

>>Romans 5:8 says Jesus died for us (not for himself).

Indeed, but not as a vicarious "perfect sacrifice" but rather to ratify the new covenant.

>>>1 Cor 15:44 contrasts Adam with Christ, the first being sinful, the latter being sinless.

That is not in view in that passage. What Paul is saying there, which is amazing, is that Christian resurrection is not really resurrection but rather re-incarnation.

>>>And this: "He changed natures" - an event that Paul knows nothing about.
• 2 Peter 1:4. Through the promises (not yet given), we might be partakers of the “divine nature”.

Um, this is not Paul. Nor is this about being transformed upon death, but rather about a change of mind by the renewing of one's mind through the promises:

3 According as his divine power ***hath given*** unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, ***through the knowledge*** of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that ***by these*** ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
YLT:5 ¶ And this same also—all diligence having brought in besides, superadd in your faith the worthiness, and in the worthiness the knowledge,
6 and in the knowledge the temperance, and in the temperance the endurance, and in the endurance the piety,
7 and in the piety the brotherly kindness, and in the brotherly kindness the love;
8 for these things being to you and abounding, do make you neither inert nor unfruitful in regard to the acknowledging of our Lord Jesus Christ,
9 for he with whom these things are not present is blind, dim-sighted, having become forgetful of the cleansing of his old sins;

You are mixing apples and oranges. Paul speaks of Jesus dying to sin that he might live to God and you say that this refers to his obtaining a new, divine nature upon his resurrection, while Pete tells of the promises being the vehicle of transformation in this life.

Jesus died to sin - not to a "nature." He now lives to God. Christians should do likewise. Baptism should reflect this. Don't muddy the water with irrelevant passages in support of terms and ideas not present in the current text, nor in the imported text.

EXegesis, not EISegesis.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

WoundedEgo said...

>>>Why would being baptized into a sinner's death save sinners?

Are we discussing Paul or Peter?

Paul says that dying to sin allowed Jesus to live to God. He repeats this elsewhere:

Ro 7:4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Ro 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Death breaks the binding relationship. Jesus' marriage to sin is over, so now he can have a new unencumbered relation to God. So also the believer.

Eph 4:
21 If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, ***as the truth is in Jesus***:
22 That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts;
23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;
24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

Jesus was the first of many brothers, who died to sin and now live to God:

Ro 8:29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

This is the plain reading of the text, unencumbered by the fabrication of a divine Jesus.

Roman 6:
3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into **his death**?
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so **we also should walk in newness of life**.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, **that the body of sin might be destroyed**, **that henceforth we should not serve sin**.

The Catholic-Protestant debacle is built on falsehoods:

* the Trinity God
* the "perfect sacrifice" payment

The biblical religion has been extinct for millennia. Constantine triumphed over it, as did Islam.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jason said...

Are we discussing Paul or Peter?

I'm discussing the Bible.

I have no idea what your answer to the question is. Keep it short please and don't bother with irrelevant facts (Catholics, etc.).

Why would being baptized into a sinner's death save sinners?

Jason said...

The question stands: Isaac wasn’t presenting himself to God after he was free from death (Heb 11:17, James 2:21). Why would Jesus be any difference?

Abraham led Isaac up to the mountain but did not ever kill him. Thus killing is not the issue. The leading up is. James uses a different word.

Yes, it is the issue. You say of Hebrews 9:14 “Here he clearly presents himself to God, and he did so when he was free from death:” If you’re going to claim that the Greek word “offer” actually means “lead”, then you must be consistent and state the word means the same thing in Hebrews 11:17 when Isaac was offered up. Did Isaac present himself to God when he was free from death? Absolutely not. Therefore, we can safely say Christ also didn’t present himself to God after death. The “offering” was an offering of life.

And you’re right, James does use a different word: anapherō This word is used of Christ many times (Heb 7:27, Heb 9:28, 1 Peter 2:24). The evidence is clear: Christ’s offering was his own life, not his ascension post-resurrection. Christ presented himself as a lamb without spot or blemish, a suitable sacrifice for the atonement of sins.

“One can present gifts, prayers, sacrifices or oneself.”

Naturally. Christ offered his life as Abraham was prepared to do with Isaac’s.

Let's put it another way... if you were not so desparate to find any shred of support for Anselmism…

Define Anselmism.

…would you really have any problem whatsoever with reading this as referring to his, now that he is qualified, presenting himself for priestly service to God? Of course not.

I have no idea what you’re arguing. You’re saying Christ sinned but all you keep presenting is ideas about Jesus’ qualifications for high priesthood. Why?

What, in your mind, is the significance of "through the eternal breath" in this passage?:

You tell me. I can’t stop reading how the blood of Christ, who offered himself without spot, purges our conscience. Blood and offering, tied together, the same way blood and offerings were tied together in the OT sacrifices.

Heb 1:3 And? Where does it say Christ sinned? Christ was corruptible, he died, and was raised incorruptible. Being corruptible isn’t dependant on the act of sinning, it simply requires the propensity to sin. You’re arguing points I’m not making.

The most explicit passage is the Hebrews passage where it is given as a prerequisite for high priests, and the reason that the priests made offerings for themselves before representing the people.

What’s a prerequisite? Sinning??? No, absolutely not. The only reason why the priests had to make offerings for themselves was because they had committed sins. Otherwise you’re suggesting that God forced priests, and Christ, to sin before He would accept their sacrifice. Not only is this ludicrous, it’s also a completely foreign concept in Scripture.

How else is a believer to "likewise" die to sin and live to God in this life per Romans 6 and the figure of baptism?

The Bible doesn’t define “dying to sin” as suddenly becoming sinless. Baptism frees believers from the bonds of sin, in the same manner Christ was freed from the bonds of sin through his own death and subsequent resurrection. Paul warns believers “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God…” (Romans 6:12-13) Believers are still mortal and they still die since the “wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).

Instead Jesus died to CONDEMN sin (Rom 8:3, Heb 9:26). The word "condemn" means "sentence" as in this case, "to give a death sentence to."

Yes, that’s what I said: Christ condemned sin.

Romans 5:8 says Jesus died for us (not for himself). Indeed, but not as a vicarious "perfect sacrifice" but rather to ratify the new covenant.

Like I said, Christ died for us, not himself.

1 Cor 15:44 contrasts Adam with Christ, the first being sinful, the latter being sinless.

That is not in view in that passage.

It sure is. Verse 57 says it loud and clear. Adam, earthly, is contrasted with Christ, heavenly. Sin contrasted with sinlessness. Adam gave death, Christ gave life (John 6:33). How could Christ give life? By being completely sinless and a perfect sacrifice.

What Paul is saying there, which is amazing, is that Christian resurrection is not really resurrection but rather re-incarnation.

Not only is this irrelevant but it's amazing how ignorant you are. 1 Cor 15:21 “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

"He changed natures" - an event that Paul knows nothing about.

Paul knows that corruption must put on incorruption. What do you think he's talking about?

Nor is this about being transformed upon death, but rather about a change of mind by the renewing of one's mind through the promises

Semantics. A change of the mind is a change of nature. The sinful, mortal creatures who are to inherit the kingdom of God will be “changed in the twinkling of an eye”.

Paul speaks of Jesus dying to sin that he might live to God and you say that this refers to his obtaining a new, divine nature upon his resurrection, while Peter tells of the promises being the vehicle of transformation in this life.

Jesus must have obtained a divine nature since in his mortal life his nature was sinful. What don’t you agree with? Mortal, sinful flesh cannot enter into Christ’s kingdom so we must be changed prior to entering. This is done with a change of nature. Corruption puts on incorruption. Jesus’ nature was changed in the same manner.

Jesus died to sin - not to a "nature."

Jesus had a sinful nature before his death. He had a sinless nature after death. Still, for some reason, you think that Christ “dying to sin” means Christ sinned. Scripture doesn’t say this. Anywhere. What it does say is that Christ condemned sin and that he died to atone for the sins of mankind. God raised Christ up on the third day, incorruptible, able now to take his place beside his Father.

Don't muddy the water with irrelevant passages in support of terms and ideas not present in the current text, nor in the imported text.
Says the guy who claims Paul preaches reincarnation not resurrection.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>Why would being baptized into a sinner's death save sinners?

Well, who says it does? I didn't. Paul didn't. Peter didn't. And I don't give a shit what the Catholic-Protestants think.

So what does that leave?

This is called "begging the question." You are asking my if I still beat my wife.

The Bible says no such thing.

So, show that it does somewhere and I'll show you why it doesn't.

What Paul *does* say is that Jesus died to sin, and that Christians should recognize themselves to, **likewise**, consider themselves dead to sin (he that is dead - like for example, Jesus) is freed from sin.

That is what Paul says. You must show that what he **meant** was "being baptized into his intrinsic sinlessness results in partaking of the divine nature" (or whatever you want it to say) - because you do not accept Paul's words on face value, while you do accept your invented paradigm as necessarily true without Biblical attestation (except unrelated, conflicting words by Peter).

I am not going to prove as biblical that which I don't believe to be so.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jason said...

Why would being baptized into a sinner's death save sinners? Well, who says it does? I didn't. Paul didn't. Peter didn't.

You said: “Peter's figure is obscure to me. It seems to be saying that baptism is salvic - not because of the first part - repentance - but by the second - the resurrection wherein the believer is forgiven and has a clear conscience”.

So is it salvic or not? Mar 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…” Of course it is.

Now what I’m asking you is how a sinner’s death could save other sinners. Under this premise, anyone could have offered himself up for a sacrifice to redeem mankind, it didn’t need to be Christ. Yet it was Christ. Why? Because he was a perfect sacrifice, a lamb without spot or blemish, the only man to have ever lived a sinless life even though he was tempted as we were.

What Paul *does* say is that Jesus died to sin, and that Christians should recognize themselves to, **likewise**, consider themselves dead to sin (he that is dead - like for example, Jesus) is freed from sin.

“Dead to sin” doesn’t mean sinless. Believers still sin after baptism. What it means is that Christians are free from the bonds of sin, they are no longer held under its power because when Christ returns, the righteous will be given eternal life because Christ condemned sin through his death.

That is what Paul says. You must show that what he **meant** was "being baptized into his intrinsic sinlessness results in partaking of the divine nature" (or whatever you want it to say)

Believers aren’t baptized into his sinlessness. Believers are baptized into his death.

WoundedEgo said...

>>...If you’re going to claim that the Greek word “offer” actually means “lead”, then you must be consistent and state the word means the same thing in Hebrews 11:17 when Isaac was offered up...

No, that is not my burden. This is a common Koine word, so we just need to see the ways it was used in the first century, and then consider its context. Here is BDAG on the word:

***********************
προσφέρω impf. προσέφερον; fut. προσοίσω LXX; aor. προσήνεγκον and προσήνεγκα (s. B-D-F §81, 2; Rob. 338; 363); pf. προσενήνοχα Hb 11:17; 1 aor. pass. προσηνέχθην (Pind.+).
① to bring someone or someth. to someone, bring act. and pass.
ⓐ bring (to) w. acc. of pers. τινά τινι bring someone to someone, sick people to Jesus or his disciples Mt 4:24; 8:16; 9:2, 32; 12:22 v.l. (for the pass.); 14:35; 17:16. The acc. is lacking but easily supplied Mk 2:4. Children to Jesus Mk 10:13a; cp. b v.l.; Lk 18:15. Pass. Mt 19:13. Bring someone before a judge, king, etc. Lk 23:14; cp. 12:11 v.l. (for εἰσφέρωσιν). Pass. Mt 18:24.
ⓑ bring (to) w. acc. of thing
α. bring (to), offer (Iren. 1, 13, 2 [Harv. I, 117, 3]; Did., Gen. 123, 25) τί τινι someth. (to) someone προσήνεγκαν αὐτῷ δηνάριον Mt 22:19. See Ac 8:18; 1 Cl 43:2. Without a dat., which is supplied by the context Mt 25:20; Hs 8, 1, 12.—Esp. bring someone someth. to drink (Menand., Georg. 61 S. and Kö. φαγεῖν πρ.; Jos., Bell. 1, 488, Ant. 4, 72 οἶνον προσφέρεσθαι=‘take wine’, Vi. 225) ὄξος προσφέροντες αὐτῷ Lk 23:36. Cp. σπόγγον μεστὸν τοῦ ὄξους … προσήνεγκαν αὐτοῦ τῷ στόματι they held a sponge full of vinegar to his mouth J 19:29. Without acc. of thing GJs 18:2 (codd.).—Without dat. ὕδωρ … προσήνεγκεν (Paul) then brought water (after distributing the eucharistic bread) AcPl Ha 4, 4.
β. τὴν χεῖρα τῷ παιδίῳ reach (your) hand out to the child GJs 20:3 (codd.).
γ. fig. of partisanship ἥττονα ἁμαρτίαν ὑμῖν προσήνεγκεν made you less guilty lit. ‘(that factionalism) brought less sin on you’ 1 Cl 47:4.
② to present someth. to someone by bringing it, bring, offer, present of offerings, gifts etc. (Simplicius In Epict. p. 93, 41 Düb. τὰς ἀπαρχάς [τῷ θεῷ]; oft. LXX; Jos., Bell. 3, 353, Ant. 3, 231).
ⓐ lit. τὶ someth. with or without dat. of pers. (of prayers Orig., C. Cels. 8, 13, 21) δῶρον, δῶρα (Jos., Ant. 6, 67), of the gifts brought by the Magi Mt 2:11 (s. Ps 71:10; on the quality of such gifts cp. Aristot., Fgm. 101 οὐθὲν κολοβὸν προσεφέρομεν πρὸς τούς θεούς=we don’t offer anything shoddy to the gods); of sacrificial gifts 5:23f; 8:4; Hb 8:3f; 9:9 (pass.); GJs 1:1f; 5:1; 1 Cl 44:4. θυσίαν, θυσίας (EpArist 170b; Jos., Ant. 8, 118; Just., D. 41, 2 al. λογικὴν καὶ ἄκαπνον θυσίαν Orig., C. Cels. 7, 1, 15) Hb 11:4; D 14:3 (s. Mal 1:11 and vs. 13 v.l.).—Hb 10:11; see vss. 1, 2 (pass.), 8 (pass.); 1 Cl 41, 2a (pass.); PtK 2 p. 14, 21. σφάγια καὶ θυσίας προσηνέγκατέ μοι Ac 7:42 (Am 5:25). προσενέγκαι μοι ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ θυσίας B 2:7 (s. Jer 7:22f); 7:6 (s. Lev 16:7, 9); 8:1 (TestJob 3:3).—τινά someone of the offering up of Isaac προσενήνοχεν (the pf. to denote what ‘stands written’; cp. Mlt 129; 142; 238) Ἀβραὰμ τὸν Ἰσαὰκ καὶ τὸν μονογενῆ προσέφερεν (impf., in a conative or inceptive sense, because the sacrifice was not actually made) Hb 11:17. Cp. Ἰσαὰκ προσενεχθεὶς ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον B 7:3b (on ἐπὶ τὸ θυς. cp. 1 Esdr 8:15). προσήνεγκεν τὴν παῖδα Ἰωακεὶμ τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν GJs 6:2ab (cp. προσάγω). Of Jesus ἑαυτὸν πρ. Hb 7:27 v.l.; cp. 9:14 (τῷ θεῷ); vs. 25. πρ. αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν σφαγήν B 8:2b. Pass. ὁ Χριστὸς προσενεχθείς Hb 9:28; here the purpose is indicated by εἰς τό w. the inf. foll. Elsewh. the purpose is expressed by means of other preps.: πρ. (τι) περί τινος (Lev 16:9; Job 1:5) Mk 1:44; cp. Lk 5:14. περὶ αὐτοῦ (v.l. ἑαυτοῦ) προσφέρειν περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν Hb 5:3. Also ὑπέρ τινος (1 Macc 7:33) Hb 5:1; 9:7; 10:12; B 7:5. Pass. Ac 21:26; B 7:4 (‘scripture’ quot. of unknown origin). W. double acc. offer someone/someth. as a θυσίαν sacrifice 1 Cl 10:7; B 7:3a (w. ὑπέρ τινος). πρ. τινί sacrifice to someone Dg 3:3. Abs. make an offering, sacrifice B 8:2a. ὀρθῶς 1 Cl 4:4 (Gen 4:7). αἷς δοκεῖτε τιμαῖς προσφέρειν by the honors which you think you offer (them) Dg 2:8. Pass. 1 Cl 41:2b. The pres. ptc. used as a subst. τὸ προσφερόμενον the offering 41:2c.—NSnaith, The Sin-Offering and Guilt-Offering, VetusT 15, ’65, 73–80.
ⓑ fig. (s. BGU 1024 VII, 25 of a poor girl ζῶσα προσεφέρετο τοῖς βουλομένοις ὡς νεκρά=‘she offered herself’) the killing of Christians will be considered by the Judeans as λατρείαν προσφέρειν τῷ θεῷ J 16:2 (s. ἀποκτείνω 1a). δεήσεις καὶ ἱκετηρίας πρ. πρὸς (τὸν θεόν) Hb 5:7 (Achilles Tat. 7:1 προσφέρειν δέησιν; JosAs 12:7 τὴν δέησίν μου; Jos., Bell. 3, 353 προσφέρει τῷ θεῷ εὐχήν; Mel., HE 4, 26, 6 δέησιν).—ἁμαρτίαν 1 Cl 47:4; δῶρα 1 Cl 44:4.
③ to behave towards or deal w. someone in a certain way, meet, deal with pass. in act. sense w. dat. of pers. (so oft. Thu.+; Diod S 14, 90, 3; Aelian, VH 12, 27; Herodian 1, 13, 7; Philo, Ebr. 69, De Jos. 47; Jos., Bell. 7, 254; 263; OGI 456, 64; SIG 807, 13 [54 a.d.]; PLond 1912, 65 [41 a.d.]) ὡς υἱοῖς ὑμῖν προσφέρεται ὁ θεός Hb 12:7.—M-M. EDNT. TW.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) (886). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
***********************

Note that in Hebrews 12:7, the usage is the third usage "deal with." So your ridiculous assertion that Hebrew and James must restrict themselves to a single usage, context be damned, is silly at best. You still have not shown what the "everlasting breath" has to do with a dead sacrifice...

>>>And you’re right, James does use a different word: anapherō This word is used of Christ many times (Heb 7:27, Heb 9:28, 1 Peter 2:24). The evidence is clear: Christ’s offering was his own life, not his ascension post-resurrection.

Again, we are dealing with a common Koine word that has no intrinsic sacrificial connotation - context may dictate that it refers to a sacrifice:

********************* BDAG
ἀναφέρω fut. ἀνοίσω LXX (also Just., D. 112 al.), 2 aor. ἀνήνεγκα (late form) and ἀνήνεγκον (B-D-F §80; 81; W-S. §13, 13; Mlt-H. 263); pf. ἀνενήνοχα LXX. Pass.: fut. ἀνενεχθήσομαι LXX; aor. ἀνηνέχθην (s. φέρω; Hom.+ in var. mngs.; ins, pap, LXX; TestSol 10:9 L; TestAbr, TestJob, Test12Patr; JosAs 10:4; ParJer; GrBar 8:4; ApcSed [-φέρυσται 10:3;-φέρνεται p. 133, 36 Ja.]; ApcMos 32; ApcZeph; Philo, Aet. M. 64; Jos., Bell. 1, 234, C. Ap. 1, 232)
① to cause to move from a lower position to a higher, take, lead, bring up, of pers. ἀ. αὐτοὺς εἰς ὄρος ὑψηλόν he led them up a high mountain Mt 17:1; Mk 9:2. Pass. ἀνεφέρετο εἰς τ. οὐρανόν he was taken up into heaven (of Romulus: Plut., Numa 60 [2, 4]; of Endymion: Hes., Fgm. 148 Rz. τὸν Ἐνδυμίωνα ἀνενεχθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Διὸς εἰς οὐρανόν; schol. on Apollon. Rhod. 4, 57 and 58 p. 264, 17) Lk 24:51 (MParsons, The Departure of Jesus in Luke-Acts ’87). ἀναφερόμενοι εἰς τὰ ὕψη IEph 9:1.
② to carry and hand over someth. to someone, deliver ἀνήνεγκεν τῷ ἱερεῖ (Mary) delivered to the priest her purple and scarlet embroidery work GJs 12:1 (pap; mss. v.l. ἀπ-). Of food, Syn. w. αἴρω GJs 18:2 (s. αἴρω 2b).
③ to offer as a sacrifice, offer up, specif. a cultic t.t. (SIG 56, 68; Lev 17:5; 1 Esdr 5:49; Is 57:6; 2 Macc 1:18; 2:9 al.; ParJer 9:1f; Did., Gen. 219, 15) ἀ. θυσίας ὑπέρ τινος offer sacrifices for someth. Hb 7:27. ἀ. τινὰ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον (Gen 8:20; Lev 14:20; Bar 1:10; 1 Macc 4:53; Just., D. 118, 2 θυσίας) offer up someone on the altar Js 2:21. Of Jesus’ sacrifice: ἑαυτὸν ἀνενέγκας when he offered up himself Hb 7:27. τὰς ἀμαρτίας ἡμῶν αὐτὸς ἀνήνεγκεν ἐν τῷ σώματι αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ ξύλον he himself brought our sins in his body to the cross 1 Pt 2:24 (cp. Dssm., B 83ff [BS 88f]). Pol 8:1 (Is 53:12).—Fig. (schol. on Apollon. Rhod. 2, 214b χάριν=render thanks to the divinity) ἀ. θυσίαν αἰνέσεως offer up a sacr. of praise Hb 13:15 (cp. 2 Ch 29:31). ἀ. πνευματικὰς θυσίας 1 Pt 2:5. ἀ. προσευχάς offer prayers 2 Cl 2:2. ἀ. δέησιν περί τινος offer up a petition for someth. B 12:7.
④ take up as a burden, take up. In Is 53:11 ἀ. is used to translate סָבַל, in vs. 12 for נָשָׂא, and in the corresponding passages in our lit. ἀ. is often rendered ‘bear’ or ‘take away’. But ἀ. seems not to have these meanings. Very often, on the contrary, it has a sense that gives ἀνα its full force: lay or impose a burden on someone, give something to someone to bear, as a rule, in fact, to someone who is not obligated to bear it (Aeschyl., Choeph. 841 ἄχθος; Polyb. 1, 36, 3; 4, 45, 9; Diod S 15, 48, 4; 32, 26, 1; Appian, Liby. 93; Syr. 41, where the other defendants were τὴν αἰτίαν ἐς τὸν Ἐπαμεινώνδαν ἀναφέροντες, i.e. putting the blame on Epaminondas. The Lex. Vind. p. 12, 3 sees in Eur., Or. 76 ἐς Φοῖβον ἀναφέρουσα τ. ἁμαρτίαν and in Procop. Soph., Ep. 7 p. 535 H. proof that ἀναφέρειν is used ἀντὶ τοῦ τὴν αἰτίαν εἰς ἕτερον τιθέναι.) In a case in which a man takes upon himself the burden that another should have borne, then ἀ.=take upon oneself (Thu. 3, 38, 3 ἡ πόλις τὰ μὲν ἆθλα ἑτέροις δίδωσιν, αὐτὴ δὲ τοὺς κινδύνους ἀναφέρει=the city gives the prizes to others, but she takes the dangers upon herself). Christ was once for all offered up in this respect (εἰς 5) that he assumed the sins of many Hb 9:28. Cp. 1 Cl 16:12, 14.—M-M. TW. Spicq.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) (75). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
****************************

Perhaps you can understand this as he "presented himself to God as a living sacrifice":

Ro 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

>>Christ presented himself as a lamb without spot or blemish, a suitable sacrifice for the atonement of sins.

Ugh. You're going to play the shampoo game:

* argue
* be refuted
* repeat

Ok. Well, Jason, you're wasting my time. You are no longer uninformed, just ignorant. Your pastor will be so proud.

>>...Define Anselmism.

http://www.theopedia.com/Satisfaction_theory

Actually, I guess I would have to say that your view is the later (16th century) "satisfaction theory":

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=13%7C46%7C350

>>...What’s a prerequisite? Sinning??? No, absolutely not. The only reason why the priests had to make offerings for themselves was because they had committed sins. Otherwise you’re suggesting that God forced priests, and Christ, to sin before He would accept their sacrifice. Not only is this ludicrous, it’s also a completely foreign concept in Scripture.

NO, it is right there in black and white. Um, the whole sacrificial system of atonement **presumes** sin. God didn't "force" anyone to sin... yeesh.

>>>The Bible doesn’t define “dying to sin” as suddenly becoming sinless. Baptism frees believers from the bonds of sin, in the same manner Christ was freed from the bonds of sin through his own death and subsequent resurrection.

Go on....

>>>Paul warns believers “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God…” (Romans 6:12-13)

Yeah, you're talking Paul's language, now... THAT is what happened to Jesus, and THAT is what he admonishes them to infer from their baptism into his death. Death to sin.

>>>...It sure is. Verse 57 says it loud and clear. Adam, earthly, is contrasted with Christ, heavenly.

"Earthly" means "originating from dirt" while "heavenly" means "originating from the sky." It does not reference sin. You are making that up. He is talking about "where do the bodies come from, since all the dead saints are rotting away?"

>>>Sin contrasted with sinlessness.

Quit pissing me off Jason with these bogus time wasters. Don't you want to understand your Bible? (Never mind - you don't have to answer that. You might lose your eldership or something).

>>>Adam gave death, Christ gave life (John 6:33).

Actually, Jesus **as gospel** gives life, not Jesus. That is his point in that passage.

>>>How could Christ give life? By being completely sinless and a perfect sacrifice.

No, that is never in any way stated in the Bible. Rather, he gives life by being the object of saving faith:

Joh 3:
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

He was *raised* for justification - one must believe the gospel, that God raised Jesus from the dead.

>>>Not only is this irrelevant but it's amazing how ignorant you are.

Maybe. Let's take a look...

>>>1 Cor 15:21 “For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.”

Right. So the graves open yes? And out pops... what? See any bodies? So Paul does the "Pauline Shuffle Dance" and creates a brand new "principle" that they should already know somehow - the principle of "you don't reap what you sow":

1 Cor 15:
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?
36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened [made faster {just kidding - made alive}], except it die:
37 ****And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain****, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain:
38 But ****God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body****.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit [life giving breath].
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual [from the breath], but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual [from the breath].
47 ****The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly****.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
51 ¶ Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be ***changed***,
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
53 For this corruptible ***must put on incorruption***, and this mortal ***must put on immortality***.
54 So when this corruptible shall have ***put on*** incorruption, and this mortal shall have ***put on*** immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is ***swallowed up*** [ie: the body from the sky will engulf the dead person] in victory.
55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory [consumption]?

So, Paul admits that the original body must die. He says the believer will no longer bear the image of the dirt-bag, Adam, but will bear the image of the man from the sky - Jesus - because they will be engulfed in a new, sky-born body. This is only "resurrection" in a literary, figurative way at best. In actuality it is full blown reincarnation ("re-fleshing"). Contrast this to Romans 8.

>>>Paul knows that corruption must put on incorruption. What do you think he's talking about?


I know *exactly* what he is talking about because I am not hunting for prooftexts for my unbiblical position but rather taking the time to study the text. So see above.

>>>Semantics. A change of the mind is a change of nature. The sinful, mortal creatures who are to inherit the kingdom of God will be “changed in the twinkling of an eye”.

The "twinkle" refers specifically to the body. It says nothing about a divine nature. For Paul, the solution to sin is not a new nature but death. Death frees from sin:

Ro 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin. That is why (one reason) Jesus had to die - to die to sin. He found "everlasting release":

Modified KJV:
Heb 9:12 Neither on the basis of the blood of goats and calves, but on the basis of his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained everlasting release.

>>>Jesus must have obtained a divine nature since in his mortal life his nature was sinful. What don’t you agree with?

"Must have" does not an argument make. Paul said he "died to sin." Hebrews said he "found everlasting release." That is all that is needed because:

Ro 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

>>>Mortal, sinful flesh cannot enter into Christ’s kingdom so we must be changed prior to entering. This is done with a change of nature. Corruption puts on incorruption. Jesus’ nature was changed in the same manner.

It comes, biblically speaking, by death. The body, he says, will be some incorruptivle new flesh from the sky. Contrast this of course to Romans 8 and the gospels.

>>>Jesus had a sinful nature before his death.

You are talking Protestant-ese. You really can't get anywhere with those kinds of baseless assertions. Can you show that from the scriptures somehow?

>>>He had a sinless nature after death.

To speak Pauline, you would say "Christ died to sin so that he might live to God." Or, talk Hebrews: "he learned obedience through the things he suffered and being made perfect he became..." When you introduce the implantation of natures here and there you leave the realm of the Bible and enter the black hole of Catholic-Protestantism.

>>>Still, for some reason, you think that Christ “dying to sin” means Christ sinned. Scripture doesn’t say this.

Your "natures" assertions are not made in the scriptures. Hebrews argues that Jesus had to make sacrifice [die] for his own sin before he could make a sacrifice [be the ratification of the new covenant] for others.

>>>Anywhere. What it does say is that Christ condemned sin and that he died to atone for the sins of mankind.

The scriptures NEVER refer to the death of Jesus as an atonement except in relation to his own sin (Hebrews 5):

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for ***this he did once***, when he offered up himself.

>>...Says the guy who claims Paul preaches reincarnation not resurrection.

That is what the text is talking about, not "new natures."

Jason... take a deep breath... entertain the possibility that the Catholic-Protestant religious community is wrong. Then look at the texts without seeking an escape clause.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

WoundedEgo said...

>>>So is it [baptism] salvic or not? Mar 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved…” Of course it is.

Mark seems to say so, yes? But certainly not without faith, no? But have we just changed topics? What is your point?

>>>Now what I’m asking you is how a sinner’s death could save other sinners.

Ok, so have we changed subjects again, or are we still discussing how "Mark" asserts baptism? I didn't say that a a sinner's death could save other sinners. You are attempting (very poorly, I might add) to put words in my mouth.

>>>Under this premise, anyone could have offered himself up for a sacrifice to redeem mankind, it didn’t need to be Christ.

Again, I'm not saying this - you are!

>>>Yet it was Christ. Why? Because he was a perfect sacrifice, a lamb without spot or blemish, the only man to have ever lived a sinless life even though he was tempted as we were.

Are you under the impression that repeating your thesis proves your thesis?

>>>“Dead to sin” doesn’t mean sinless. Believers still sin after baptism.

Kind of like "buried alive?"

>>What it means is that Christians are free from the bonds of sin,

So when someone dies to sin and is buried, they still sin - just not because they have to?:

Hebrews 6:
1 ¶ Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.
3 And this will we do, if God permit.
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:
8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.

Heb 10:26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

>>>they are no longer held under its power because when Christ returns, the righteous will be given eternal life because Christ condemned sin through his death.

So Paul's figure isn't very good:

Romans 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? [No problemo, Paul.]

Because your concepts are wrong, you do damage to the figures - and vice versa.

>>>Believers aren’t baptized into his sinlessness. Believers are baptized into his death.

Well, what can I say? It is your view or none at all. If you must be ignorant, so be it:

Rom 6:
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10 For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.
13 Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.
14 For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
15 What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.
16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

The reason the obvious is so unthinkable and requires this contrived "nature" stuff is that it is objectionable to a Trinitarian to accept that Jesus was once a sinner.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jason said...

Isaac didn't present himself to God after his death, neither did Christ. Christ is ever only mentioned as sacrificing himself once. Case closed.

So your ridiculous assertion that Hebrew and James must restrict themselves to a single usage, context be damned, is silly at best.

I’m quite happy to follow the context. Jesus was offered up to God. Isaac was offered up to God. The context is the same. Whether or not the offering was actually taken by God doesn’t change the word, just the end result. There’s no logical reason why anyone would read “Christ offered himself up” and “Abraham offered up Isaac” and conclude that Christ’s offering must have been after his death and Isaac’s wasn’t. Hebrews 11:4 uses the same word, this time talking about Abel “offering up” a sacrifice. Skip back to Hebrews 10:12, and we’ve got the same word again, this time in regards to Jesus “offering one sacrifice”.

Perhaps you can understand this as he "presented himself to God as a living sacrifice"

I have no problem with this. Isaac did the same.

Your pastor will be so proud.

Wrong branch of Christianity.

Um, the whole sacrificial system of atonement **presumes** sin.

Of course it does. But it doesn't presume sin in the priest, only sin in the individual requiring the sacrifice. Christ sacrificed himself for those requiring atonement, not for himself. The sacrificial animal was never killed for its own sin first and then re-killed for everyone else.

“Dying to sin” This phrase doesn’t mean believers suddenly become sinless for any number of reasons.

1 Cor 15 - You are making that up. He is talking about "where do the bodies come from, since all the dead saints are rotting away?"

No he's not. He's talking about RESURRECTION.

You might lose your eldership or something.

Wrong branch of Christianity.

No, that is never in any way stated in the Bible. Rather, he gives life by being the object of saving faith:

Jesus condemned sin and redeemed mankind with his blood. Doesn’t this seem life-giving to you...? Faith certainly is one aspect of salvation but faith would be meaningless if not for his original sacrifice.

He was *raised* for justification - one must believe the gospel, that God raised Jesus from the dead.

Absolutely. He offered himself as a sacrifice, he gave his life for mankind and then was raised for justification. You're arguing a non-issue.

1 Cor 15:21 - Right. So the graves open yes? And out pops... what? See any bodies?

Why would there be bodies?

So, Paul admits that the original body must die.

No he doesn’t. He simply states that corruption must put on incorruption.

A change of the mind is a change of nature. The sinful, mortal creatures who are to inherit the kingdom of God will be “changed in the twinkling of an eye”. The "twinkle" refers specifically to the body.

No it doesn't. “Twinkling of an eye” is a common reference to time. Believers will be changed instantanesouly when Christ returns.

“For Paul, the solution to sin is not a new nature but death. Death frees from sin: Ro 6:7”

Completely and utterly wrong. Read the verses. “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:” The “death” quite obviously is symbolic.

Heb 9:12 - He found "everlasting release":

Yes, from his sinful nature.

Paul said he "died to sin." Hebrews said he "found everlasting release." That is all that is needed because: Ro 6:7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

Yes, and neither of these references talk about Jesus sinning. Jesus had a sinful nature prior to his death. After his death, he didn’t. Corruption put on incorruption. Mortality put on immortality.

>>>Mortal, sinful flesh cannot enter into Christ’s kingdom so we must be changed prior to entering. This is done with a change of nature. Corruption puts on incorruption. Jesus’ nature was changed in the same manner. It comes, biblically speaking, by death.

Wrong. It comes, Biblically speaking, from baptism, which is a symbolic death,

Jesus had a sinful nature before his death. You are talking Protestant-ese. You really can't get anywhere with those kinds of baseless assertions. Can you show that from the scriptures somehow?

Huh??? If you think Jesus sinned, then Jesus must have had a sinful nature!

When you introduce the implantation of natures here and there you leave the realm of the Bible and enter the black hole of Catholic-Protestantism.

Christ put on incorruption upon his resurrection. He was given immortality. His sinful nature was destroyed, replaced by a divine nature. There’s no ‘implantation’ whatsoever, just a change

Hebrews argues that Jesus had to make sacrifice [die] for his own sin before he could make a sacrifice [be the ratification of the new covenant] for others.

That's not what it argues at all. It doesn’t say anywhere that Jesus had to “die for his own sin”. Jesus’ death condemned sin. Only ONE sacrifice was needed and that was done for mankind, not himself. Unlike the high priests under the Mosaic system of Law, he DID NOT NEED to make an offering, FIRST for HIS OWN SINS and then for the peoples', because he had no sins for which to make an offering of atonement. But the priests under the law had sins. These had to be atoned for, or, reconciliation made for them. The offering of the high priests for his sins, had to precede the offering for the people's sin. Vs. 15. The offering for the peoples' sin was not offered simultaneously with the offering of the high priest. Hence, two separate offerings were necessary. But in the case of Christ, with no sins of his own, only one sacrifice was necessary.

The scriptures NEVER refer to the death of Jesus as an atonement except in relation to his own sin (Hebrews 5)

Jesus was a spotless lamb. He HAD no sin.

Jason... take a deep breath... entertain the possibility that the Catholic-Protestant religious community is wrong. Then look at the texts without seeking an escape clause.
I quite happily read all those verses that talk about Jesus not sinning. I read Jesus was a spotless lamb and this says loud and clear that Christ had no sin.

I didn't say that a sinner's death could save other sinners. You are attempting (very poorly, I might add) to put words in my mouth.

You say Jesus was a sinner. What was so special about this sinner’s death that made baptism into his death salvic? Anyone could have offered himself up for a sacrifice to redeem mankind, it didn’t need to be Christ. 

Well, what can I say? It is your view or none at all. If you must be ignorant, so be it:
What can you say? Here's the whole crux of the problem, highlighting your ignorance to the text. Christ was baptised. He therefore must have been sinless. However you also claim he sinned. Explain.

The reason the obvious is so unthinkable and requires this contrived "nature" stuff is that it is objectionable to a Trinitarian to accept that Jesus was once a sinner.

Who’s a Trinitarian?

WoundedEgo said...

>>>Isaac didn't present himself to God after his death, neither did Christ. Christ is ever only mentioned as sacrificing himself once. Case closed.

You are being circular:

"The reason that we know that this refers to offering a sacrifice is because this is referring to him offering himself as a sacrifice."

Case reopened.

In fact, what Abraham did was he *led* Isaac up to the mount of God and he *presented* him to God - he did not go through with the sacrifice. And that is all the word is referring to.

>>I’m quite happy to follow the context. Jesus was offered up to God.

The word in question has no usage of "offered up." It refers to "presenting" - which, when the context is right, can be anything, including, say a barnyard animal.

>>Isaac was offered up to God.

Not in the sense you are hoping to argue. Rather, he was presented to God.

>>>The context is the same.

The context is Hebrews, not Genesis. Different author, different characters, different situation, different everything.

>>Whether or not the offering was actually taken by God doesn’t change the word, just the end result.

So what are you saying the word means? I'm confused.

>>>There’s no logical reason why anyone would read “Christ offered himself up” and “Abraham offered up Isaac” and conclude that Christ’s offering must have been after his death and Isaac’s wasn’t.

You are misrepresenting my argument. I am not arguing that it is the limited scope of the words hEAUTON PROSHNEGKEN that lead me to believe that this refers to presenting himself alive, but rather the words immediately preceding:

Modified YLT:
Heb 9:14 how much more shall the blood of the anointed one (***who through the everlasting breath*** presented himself unblemished to God) purify your conscience from activities of death to serve the God of life?

I have asked you repeatedly what you think the words "through the everlasting breath" mean and you have offered no opposing meaning to my interpretation - that he was alive forever:

Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

Sow what you are trying to do is prove that the word offered MUST refer to a sacrifice (ie: a death, not a living sacrifice). Well, the word in question appears in Genesis once:

43:26 And Joseph entered into the house, and they **brought** him the gifts which they had in their hands, into the house; and they did him reverence with their face to the ground.

Add to this the fact that I have supplied you with the most authoritative Koine lexicon entry, and you CONTINUE to appeal to conincidence with a sacrifice that never happened!:

2Ti 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

>>>Hebrews 11:4 uses the same word, this time talking about Abel “offering up” a sacrifice. Skip back to Hebrews 10:12, and we’ve got the same word again, this time in regards to Jesus “offering one sacrifice”.

It speaks of both Cain and Abel offering gifts to God:

* Cain offered some leftover Zucchini - something farmers always seem to grow successfully beyond measure

* Abel offered a more costly animal - a sheep. This, since it was costly, did not serve as an insult.

But they both **presented** their "sacrifices" to God:

Heb 11:4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain [offered], by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

>>I have no problem with this. Isaac did the same.

Well... then problem solved. Jesus offered himself as a "living sacrifice" so to speak. He offered himself to God alive from the dead to serve as high priest.

>>>Of course it does. But it doesn't presume sin in the priest, only sin in the individual requiring the sacrifice.

WRONG - and I know you already know it is wrong. Or, well, I think you do - don't you??:

Hebrews 5:
1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.

>>>Christ sacrificed himself for those requiring atonement, not for himself. The sacrificial animal was never killed for its own sin first and then re-killed for everyone else.

I am going to take this as genuine lack of knowledge, because this is a piece of knowledge that is not easy to come by. I had to exegete this one verse at a time... Hebrews refers constantly to the day of atonement - that day of each year in the Hebrew cult when the sins of the people are removed. It is the most holy day of the calendar. Here is the short, short version:

* the high priest offers animal sacrifices to cleanse the altar from the sins of the people;

* the high priest kills a goat for his own sins;

* the high priest then lays his hands on a living goat, symbolically laying the sins of the people on the goat. The goat is then driven into the wilderness - carrying away the sins of the people;

See Leviticus 16 for details.

Hebrews compares the actions of Jesus to this. He compares the death of the bull to his own death, which frees him from sin in prepartion for priestly service. The living bull is Jesus ascended to serve as high priest, removing the sins of those who believe.

>>No he's not. He's talking about RESURRECTION.

What resurrection? He explains that the bodies come from the sky. He is not talking about "new souls" or any such thing.

>>>Wrong branch of Christianity.

As I read my comments, I must apologize for being cocky. You have been quite reasonable.

>>Jesus condemned sin and redeemed mankind with his blood. Doesn’t this seem life-giving to you...? Faith certainly is one aspect of salvation but faith would be meaningless if not for his original sacrifice.

Why do you say that? Abraham believed about land, and he "obtained a good report." Noah about a flood - he "obtained the righteousness of faith."

>>>Absolutely. He offered himself as a sacrifice, he gave his life for mankind and then was raised for justification. You're arguing a non-issue.

The raising did not effect justification for anyone. Faith is the whole deal.

>>So, Paul admits that the original body must die.
No he doesn’t. He simply states that corruption must put on incorruption.

In this passage, he does:

1 Cor 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

But in a later passage, he doesn't:

1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

>>The "twinkle" refers specifically to the body.
No it doesn't. “Twinkling of an eye” is a common reference to time. Believers will be changed instantanesouly when Christ returns.

We agree on the time thing... what leads you to believe that he is speaking of a new soul or what have you?

“For Paul, the solution to sin is not a new nature but death. Death frees from sin: Ro 6:7”
Completely and utterly wrong. Read the verses. “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:” The “death” quite obviously is symbolic.

Symbolic of what? How about of "death?!" And specifically, "death to sin." And even more specifically, "the death of Jesus to sin."

>>>Heb 9:12 - He found "everlasting release":
Yes, from his sinful nature.

Hmmm... you have failed to demonstrate that your "nature" thing is documented and not just imagined. You say that Paul left out a couple of words. What he MEANT to say is:

Ro 6:10 For in that he [Jesus] died, he died unto HIS SINFUL NATURE once: but in that he liveth, he STILL liveth unto God, ONLY NOW WITH NO SIN NATURE.

That is not what he DID say, though. Not here, not anywhere.

>>Yes, and neither of these references talk about Jesus sinning.

How does someone with a sinful "nature" AND the same kind of temptations that we experience (ie: the urge to "frolic") not have sinned? Sounds kinda like since he already faced every temptation we experience, he didn't really need to change his nature at all. Why die to get rid of a nature that is working as well as that? What is stopping you from living unto God? Why make an offering for your sins before you serve as high priest?

>>Jesus had a sinful nature prior to his death. After his death, he didn’t. Corruption put on incorruption. Mortality put on immortality.

"Corruption" refers to "that which rots." Ie: their mortal bodies. Frankly, it is this dogged determination to read what you want in passages that are not saying what you want that makes me want to spit.

>>>Jesus had a sinful nature before his death.

Says who?

>>>You are talking Protestant-ese. You really can't get anywhere with those kinds of baseless assertions. Can you show that from the scriptures somehow?

I have, over and over. That is all I've been doing!

>>>That's not what it argues at all. It doesn’t say anywhere that Jesus had to “die for his own sin”.

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, ***first for his own sins***, and then for the people’s: for ***this he did*** once, when he offered up himself.

>>>Jesus’ death condemned sin. Only ONE sacrifice was needed and that was done for mankind, not himself.

Under the Torah, the high priest first killed a goat for himself, then set free the scape goat for the sins of the people. There was one death and one live one. So Hebrews argues with Jesus - he died to sin (real, not imagined) and then lives to make intercession for the people - to "bear away the sins of many."

>>>Unlike the high priests under the Mosaic system of Law, he DID NOT NEED to make an offering, FIRST for HIS OWN SINS and then for the peoples', because he had no sins for which to make an offering of atonement.

Hebrews says he doesn't have to do it because he did it, and its effect was permanent!:

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, ***first for his own sins***, and then for the people’s: for ***this he did*** once, when he offered up himself.

>>>But the priests under the law had sins. These had to be atoned for, or, reconciliation made for them. The offering of the high priests for his sins, had to precede the offering for the people's sin. Vs. 15. The offering for the peoples' sin was not offered simultaneously with the offering of the high priest. Hence, two separate offerings were necessary. But in the case of Christ, with no sins of his own, only one sacrifice was necessary.

Read Leviticus.

>>>Jesus was a spotless lamb. He HAD no sin.

He *is* but was not, until he died to sin.

>>>You say Jesus was a sinner. What was so special about this sinner’s death that made baptism into his death salvic? Anyone could have offered himself up for a sacrifice to redeem mankind, it didn’t need to be Christ. 


Well... look at it this way... one MUST die to sin, no? That is pre-requisite to justification, yes? And one MUST believe... that is the grounds of justification, no?

>>>What can you say? Here's the whole crux of the problem, highlighting your ignorance to the text. Christ was baptised. He therefore must have been sinless. However you also claim he sinned. Explain.

I'm not sure I even understand what you think is profound about this question. If nothing else, maybe he sinned before he was baptized? But really, that is not what I am proposing. I'm proposing, or rather, Hebrews is proposing, that he learned obedience through the things he suffered and that he was not free from sin until he physically died.

>>>Who’s a Trinitarian?

Sorry. I am speaking more generally. This whole paradigm of a sinless Jesus is the invention of the folks who also brought us the "obviously true information" that God's *mother* was "immaculate." (Barf.)

Jason, by the way, while the bandying about of the term "nature" is very common these days, since the scriptures do not say what you are saying, I'm wondering if your views are original to you, or did you learn them from particular "school?"

Thanks,

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jason said...

In fact, what Abraham did was he *led* Isaac up to the mount of God and he *presented* him to God - he did not go through with the sacrifice. And that is all the word is referring to.

Okay, let’s backtrack. You say Jesus presented himself to God after his death, upon his ascension and not on the cross. However, the offering and sacrifice of Christ is always mentioned as occurring on the cross and never, not even once, mentioned as occurring at his ascension. There was only one sacrifice and it most assuredly did not occur after his death. Why do we know this?

Act 2:24 "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it."

God raised Christ up BECAUSE he was sinless. Christ wasn't therefore required to offer or present or sacrifice himself again. God's reward of immortality had already been given.

The word in question has no usage of "offered up." It refers to "presenting" - which, when the context is right, can be anything, including, say a barnyard animal.

That's right. Christ "presented" himself as a sacrifice in the same way Abel "presented" a sacrifice to God.

Whether or not the offering was actually taken by God doesn’t change the word, just the end result. -So what are you saying the word means? I'm confused.

I'm saying that whether or not the offering was taken by God doesn’t change the definition of the word. An offering is still an offering, whether we're talking about Isaac or Christ.

You are misrepresenting my argument. I am not arguing that it is the limited scope of the words hEAUTON PROSHNEGKEN that lead me to believe that this refers to presenting himself alive, but rather the words immediately preceding: Heb 9:14

This says nothing about Jesus presenting himself to God after his death.

I have asked you repeatedly what you think the words "through the everlasting breath" mean and you have offered no opposing meaning to my interpretation - that he was alive forever:

Jesus died. He couldn't have been alive forever.

Heb 7:16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.

“Endless” – Def: Not subject to destruction. Fits in perfectly with the fact that Christ put on immortality and incorruption after his death.

Jesus offered himself as a "living sacrifice" so to speak. He offered himself to God alive from the dead to serve as high priest.

Wrong. God raised Jesus because the bonds of sin had no power over him due to the fact he was sinless. ("Alive from the dead..."???)

But it doesn't presume sin in the priest, only sin in the individual requiring the sacrifice. - WRONG - and I know you already know it is wrong. Or, well, I think you do - don't you??: Hebrews 5:1-3

And? The law still doesn’t require a sinful priest. It simply requires a sinful priest to atone for his sins before offering one for the sins of the people. Lev 4:3 "IF the priest that is anointed do sin…” This obviously isn’t required in an instance where there is no sin.

Hebrews compares the actions of Jesus to this. He compares the death of the bull to his own death, which frees him from sin in prepartion for priestly service. The living bull is Jesus ascended to serve as high priest, removing the sins of those who believe.

Irrelevant. Christ sacrificed himself for those requiring atonement, not for himself. The sacrificial animal was never killed for its own sin first and then re-killed for everyone else. Secondly, Jesus is always referred to as a lamb, never a bull.

What resurrection? He explains that the bodies come from the sky. He is not talking about "new souls" or any such thing.

What resurrection? The resurrection of the dead: “For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised” (1 Cor 15:16)

Abraham believed about land, and he "obtained a good report." Noah about a flood - he "obtained the righteousness of faith."

Noah and Abraham were pre-Christ. Since then, Jesus condemned sin and redeemed mankind with his blood.

He offered himself as a sacrifice, he gave his life for mankind and then was raised for justification. You're arguing a non-issue. - The raising did not effect justification for anyone. Faith is the whole deal.

Romans 4:25 – Jesus was raised “for our justification”

So, Paul admits that the original body must die. - No he doesn’t. He simply states that corruption must put on incorruption. - In this passage, he does…

Neither 1 Cor 15:36 or 15:51 mention that the “original body” must die.

The "twinkle" refers specifically to the body. - No it doesn't. “Twinkling of an eye” is a common reference to time. Believers will be changed instantaneously when Christ returns. - We agree on the time thing... what leads you to believe that he is speaking of a new soul or what have you?

You said “twinkle” refers specifically to the body. I said it refers to time. This means we don’t agree on the same thing. I’ve also never said Paul is speaking of a new soul. I’m simply saying the righteous will be “changed” when Christ returns, the same way Jesus was "changed" when resurrected.

“For Paul, the solution to sin is not a new nature but death. Death frees from sin -
Completely and utterly wrong. Read the verses. “God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:” The “death” quite obviously is symbolic. - Symbolic of what? How about of "death?!" And specifically, "death to sin." And even more specifically, "the death of Jesus to sin."


Read the chapter. Baptism is symbolically dying with Christ – Paul is in no way speaking of a literal death. “We are buried with Christ by baptism into death.” You’ve already stated this yourself when you said: “it was a symbol of death/burial with Jesus to sin…”

Heb 9:12 - He found "everlasting release": - Yes, from his sinful nature. - Hmmm... you have failed to demonstrate that your "nature" thing is documented and not just imagined.

I don’t need to demonstrate further. Christ died, he condemned sin, God raised him because death couldn’t hold him, he was given immortality and incorruption, and took his place next to his Father. The everlasting release is an everlasting release from mortality and corruption.

How does someone with a sinful "nature" AND the same kind of temptations that we experience (ie: the urge to "frolic") not have sinned?

That's the million dollar question. Christ didn't sin because of his spiritual strength and the daily assistance from God.

Sounds kinda like since he already faced every temptation we experience, he didn't really need to change his nature at all. Why die to get rid of a nature that is working as well as that?

Because it’s not a perfect nature since sinning is still a possibility.

What is stopping you from living unto God? Why make an offering for your sins before you serve as high priest?

Relevance?

Jesus had a sinful nature prior to his death. After his death, he didn’t. Corruption put on incorruption. Mortality put on immortality. - "Corruption" refers to "that which rots." Ie: their mortal bodies. Frankly, it is this dogged determination to read what you want in passages that are not saying what you want that makes me want to spit.

The wages of sin is death. Sin corrupts. An incorruptible body is therefore one that doesn’t sin.

Jesus had a sinful nature before his death. - Says who?

Says you. Says me. Says the Bible.

You are talking Protestant-ese. You really can't get anywhere with those kinds of baseless assertions. Can you show that from the scriptures somehow? - I have, over and over. That is all I've been doing!

You just responded to your own comment…

I said: Jesus had a sinful nature before his death. You said: You are talking Protestant-ese. You really can't get anywhere with those kinds of baseless assertions. Can you show that from the scriptures somehow? I said: Huh??? If you think Jesus sinned, then Jesus must have had a sinful nature!

Jesus’ death condemned sin. Only ONE sacrifice was needed and that was done for mankind, not himself. - Under the Torah, the high priest first killed a goat for himself, then set free the scape goat for the sins of the people. There was one death and one live one.

Not quite. The high priest killed a bull for himself and there were two goats – one was used as a scapegoat and set free and the other was killed. (I thought you said earlier Jesus was actually a bull...?)

So Hebrews argues with Jesus - he died to sin (real, not imagined) and then lives to make intercession for the people - to "bear away the sins of many."

That’s right. Jesus died to condemn sin, was resurrected because death couldn’t hold him, and now he lives to make intercession. Perfect.

Unlike the high priests under the Mosaic system of Law, he DID NOT NEED to make an offering, FIRST for HIS OWN SINS and then for the peoples', because he had no sins for which to make an offering of atonement. - Hebrews says he doesn't have to do it because he did it, and its effect was permanent!:

He didn’t need to do it because he didn’t sin. This is why death couldn’t “hold” him.

Hence, two separate offerings were necessary. But in the case of Christ, with no sins of his own, only one sacrifice was necessary. - Read Leviticus.

The conclusion is still the same - Christ didn't offer a sacrifice for himself because he was sinless.

Jesus was a spotless lamb. He HAD no sin. - He *is* but was not, until he died to sin.

1 Peter 1:19 “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” Christ was a spotless lamb when he shed his blood for mankind on the cross.

You say Jesus was a sinner. What was so special about this sinner’s death that made baptism into his death salvic? Anyone could have offered himself up for a sacrifice to redeem mankind, it didn’t need to be Christ. - Well... look at it this way... one MUST die to sin, no? That is pre-requisite to justification, yes? And one MUST believe... that is the grounds of justification, no?

I’m not sure why you’re going on about dying to sin. People die BECAUSE they sin. Christ didn’t die because he sinned, he sacrificed himself to redeem mankind with his blood. Because he had never sinned though, death couldn’t hold him, and so God resurrected him.

You still haven’t answered the question though. What so special about this sinner’s death that made baptism into his death salvic?

What can you say? Here's the whole crux of the problem, highlighting your ignorance to the text. Christ was baptised. He therefore must have been sinless. However you also claim he sinned. Explain. - I'm not sure I even understand what you think is profound about this question

You’ve been arguing that baptism changes an individual so they’re incapable of sinning. By your definition then, Christ couldn’t have sinned after his baptism. Explain this.

If nothing else, maybe he sinned before he was baptized?

Ouch.

I'm proposing, or rather, Hebrews is proposing, that he learned obedience through the things he suffered and that he was not free from sin until he physically died.

“Free from sin” simply means free from the bonds of sin, that is, death. This same phrase is used of the baptized faithful in Romans 6:18 and :22. Christ is also said to have made the righteous “free” – John 8:36, Romans 8:2, 1 Cor 7:22, Gal 4:31, 5:31

This whole paradigm of a sinless Jesus is the invention of the folks who also brought us the "obviously true information" that God's *mother* was "immaculate."

Unitarians believe Jesus was sinless also.

Jason, by the way, while the bandying about of the term "nature" is very common these days, since the scriptures do not say what you are saying, I'm wondering if your views are original to you, or did you learn them from particular "school?"

The Scriptures talk about the righteous being “changed”. They also talk about mortals putting on immortality, corruption putting on incorruption. Since sin corrupts, this “change” can only be describing a change in nature – from a sinful nature to a divine nature. In an instant, the righteous will be changed and their sinful nature will be done away with.

My views aren’t unique and they weren’t learnt from a school. A logical reading of Scripture clearly indicates a change will occur. Whether you want to use the word "nature" or not doesn’t change the point – the righteous will no longer sin in Christ’s kingdom.

WoundedEgo said...

YOU STILL DID NOT ADDRESS "everlasting breath."

???????????????????????????????

>>>...However, the offering and sacrifice of Christ is always mentioned as occurring on the cross and never, not even once, mentioned as occurring at his ascension.

You continue to pretend that the word PROPHERO means "sacrifice." It doesn't. I showed you the Koine usages. I showed you examples. It means "to present." In the right context it *can* refer to a sacrificial offering.

But Hebrews explains why there was only one sacrifice, and that is because that one sacrifice was actually the death brought in to ratify a new covenant, that did not require sacrifices. It was the establishment of a new covenant that obviated the sacrificial system altogether. The new covenant offers forgiveness *without* the shedding of blood:

Heb 10 (I corrected verse 14):
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. ***He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second***.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ [to ratify a new covenant] **once** for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away [their] sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for [his] sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
14 For one offering he hath completed for them that are [being] sanctified [, by effecting a new covenant].
15 Whereof the Holy Ghost [breath] also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
18 Now where remission of these is, ***there is no more offering for sin***.
19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,
20 By ***a new and living*** way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
21 And having an high priest over the house of God;

Verse 14 points out that though the priests usually offered a sacrifice for themselves, and then brought the people's sacrifices, Jesus only offered one - for his own cleansing, but since that was also the death brought in to ratify the new covenant, it simultaneously made sacrifices unnecessary for anyone. Hence, one sacrifice did it.

But the passage we have been discussing refers to his ministry as high priest, administering the new covenant. Note that he "bears the sins of many." This is not the role of the goat that was killed for the sins of the priest, but rather the role of the scape goat - the living goat. Upon its head were the sins of the "many" placed and it would "bear" them into the wilderness - alive.

Lev 16:22 And the goat shall bear their unrighteousnesses upon him into a desert land; and Aaron shall send away the goat into the wilderness.

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered [as a sacrifice, to allow him] to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

So he was sacrificed, but this was not bearing the sins of the many but rather in order to [EIS] bear the sins of many.

>>There was only one sacrifice and it most assuredly did not occur after his death. Why do we know this?
Act 2:24 "Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it."
God raised Christ up BECAUSE he was sinless.

It does not say that. In fact the passage harps back to the idea of his being "learned obedience" and "becoming obdient":

Acts 2:28 **Thou hast made known to me the ways of life**; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

>>Christ wasn't therefore required to offer or present or sacrifice himself again. God's reward of immortality had already been given.

To whom?

>>>...I have asked you repeatedly what you think the words "through the everlasting breath" mean and you have offered no opposing meaning to my interpretation - that he was alive forever:
Jesus died. He couldn't have been alive forever.

Sorry, I meant "alive for ever" or "he had everlasting life."

>>>...This obviously isn’t required in an instance where there is no sin.

Hebrews argues that priests are taken from among men SPECIFICALLY so they can relate to their sinful peers. It was part of their qualifications.

Heb 5:1 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
2 Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
3 And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.

Later Hebrews says Jesus did this.

>>>Irrelevant. Christ sacrificed himself for those requiring atonement, not for himself.

Can you please expound this verse for me?:

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

You see, Hebrews is making a meticulous analogy with Leviticus 16. You are destroying it with your pedantic "perfect sacrifice" "substituionary atonement" theory. So the verses don't cooperate with you.

>>>The sacrificial animal was never killed for its own sin first and then re-killed for everyone else.

No, one goat was killed for the priest, the other was sent to the woods, bearing the sins of the many. Then there were many atonements, daily. Hebrews says that Jesus doesn't have to do these because there is a new covenant.

>>Secondly, Jesus is always referred to as a lamb, never a bull.

Right. He was not an atonement. See? A passover, yes. A king's kid, yes. A sin offering, no.

>>What resurrection? He explains that the bodies come from the sky. He is not talking about "new souls" or any such thing.

What resurrection? The resurrection of the dead: “For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised” (1 Cor 15:16)

This is a tangent. Never mind.

>>>Noah and Abraham were pre-Christ. Since then, Jesus condemned sin and redeemed mankind with his blood.

But their faith is the paradigm of NT justification, which is also on the basis of faith... but just a different report - the resurrection of Jesus.

>>>...The raising did not effect justification for anyone. Faith is the whole deal.

Romans 4:25 – Jesus was raised “for our justification”

What is your point? That when he was resurrected, you were thereby justified? I think not.

>>>...I’m simply saying the righteous will be “changed” when Christ returns, the same way Jesus was "changed" when resurrected.

Personally, I think Paul's resurrection teaching is all screwed up. He can't get his story straight. The problem seems to be that Jesus was said to have resurrected... before the body decomposed. The decomposed, Paul says, will get new flesh from the sky, and thus bear the image of "the guy from the sky." He says "You boneheads - you don't reap what you sow!"

But that is all tangential, except to say that the whole thing is too screwed up to have an intelligent discussion around.

>>>...Because it’s not a perfect nature since sinning is still a possibility.

So choice must be removed? Jesus was domesticated? Neutered? I must say that the religious mind is a creative thing.

>>>The wages of sin is death. Sin corrupts. An incorruptible body is therefore one that doesn’t sin.

Whatever.

>>>Jesus had a sinful nature before his death. - Says who?
Says you. Says me. Says the Bible.

NO. I say he sinned, not that he had a "sinful nature." That is an absurdity.

>>>...Huh??? If you think Jesus sinned, then Jesus must have had a sinful nature!

NO. I say that there is no such thing as a "sinful nature." Sin is moral, and moral involves choice. And choice that is dictated by one's nature is not choice. You can't have a sin gene. That term is ignorant.

>>>...Not quite. The high priest killed a bull for himself and there were two goats – one was used as a scapegoat and set free and the other was killed. (I thought you said earlier Jesus was actually a bull...?)

Sorry, I meant to say goat. (I'm not completely senile, but I have got to the point where I can hide my own Easter eggs!)

>>That’s right. Jesus died to condemn sin,

"he died to sin." This denotes a severing of relations.

>>>...He didn’t need to do it because he didn’t sin. This is why death couldn’t “hold” him.

But you are skirting around the verse that says "this he DID once":

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: FOR THIS HE DID ONCE, when he offered up himself.

Don't you feel cheap when you avoid the text and play diversionary tactics? Have you no integrity? Shame on you.

>>>The conclusion is still the same - Christ didn't offer a sacrifice for himself because he was sinless.

Let's see... you don't address texts you can't deal with, you make up terms and concepts you can't defend and then you say "the conclusion is the same." Well I guess so. "One cannot be reasoned out of that which they were not reasoned into."

>>>...1 Peter 1:19 “But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:” Christ was a spotless lamb when he shed his blood for mankind on the cross.

To be a spotless lamb, one does not have to be impeccable - or to have never sinned:

2Pe 3:14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:
Jude 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
Mt 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Lu 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.
1Co 1:8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Php 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
Php 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
1Th 5:23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
1Ti 3:10 And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless.
1Ti 5:7 And these things give in charge, that they may be blameless.
Tit 1:6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly.
Tit 1:7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

>>>...Unitarians believe Jesus was sinless also.

The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree.

YOU STILL DID NOT ADDRESS "everlasting breath."

???????????????????????????????

Thanks,

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jason said...

You continue to pretend that the word PROPHERO means "sacrifice." It doesn't. I showed you the Koine usages. I showed you examples. It means "to present." In the right context it *can* refer to a sacrificial offering.

Irrelevant. Christ made one sacrifice. Since its inception, it’s been commonly accepted in Christianity that this one sacrifice occurred on the cross by the giving of his life and quite rightly so:

Heb 9:26, 10:12, 11:4
“Sacrifice” = thysia = a sacrifice, victim
Root: thyō = to sacrifice, immolate, to slay, kill, of the paschal lamb, slaughter

Jesus’ offering and sacrifice was his life. Jesus was the Passover lamb, killed to “condemn sin” and redeem mankind.

But Hebrews explains why there was only one sacrifice, and that is because that one sacrifice was actually the death brought in to ratify a new covenant, that did not require sacrifices. It was the establishment of a new covenant that obviated the sacrificial system altogether. The new covenant offers forgiveness *without* the shedding of blood.

I’ve never stated otherwise.

Verse 14 points out that though the priests usually offered a sacrifice for themselves, and then brought the people's sacrifices, Jesus only offered one - for his own cleansing, but since that was also the death brought in to ratify the new covenant, it simultaneously made sacrifices unnecessary for anyone. Hence, one sacrifice did it.

You’re incorporating ideas that don’t exist. Christ is never said to have offered a sacrifice for his own cleansing. Ever. Leviticus makes it clear that only IF a priest had sinned did they need to offer a sacrifice to atone for their sins. No sin, no sacrifice.

Note that he "bears the sins of many." This is not the role of the goat that was killed for the sins of the priest, but rather the role of the scape goat - the living goat. Upon its head were the sins of the "many" placed and it would "bear" them into the wilderness - alive.

The bull was killed for the sins of the priest and one goat was killed as a sin offering for the people: Lev 16:15 “Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail,” Jesus also wasn’t sent away alive into an uninhabited land. He was killed and by his own blood, he “entered into the holy place”.

Act 2:24 - God raised Christ up BECAUSE he was sinless. - It does not say that.

It doesn’t need to “say” it. The link is obvious: It was not possible that Christ should be “held” by death because the wages of sin is death. Christ didn't sin so he couldn't be bound by the laws of sin.

In fact the passage harps back to the idea of his being "learned obedience" and "becoming obedient": Acts 2:28

Acts 2:28 doesn’t mention or even allude to obedience. The wages of sin is death. No sin, no death.

Christ wasn't therefore required to offer or present or sacrifice himself again. God's reward of immortality had already been given. - To whom?

Already answered.

...I have asked you repeatedly what you think the words "through the everlasting breath" mean and you have offered no opposing meaning to my interpretation - that he was alive forever: - Jesus died. He couldn't have been alive forever. - Sorry, I meant "alive for ever" or "he had everlasting life."

It doesn’t matter: Jesus still died. He couldn’t have had everlasting life. What does this have to do with Jesus sinning?

This obviously isn’t required in an instance where there is no sin. - Hebrews argues that priests are taken from among men SPECIFICALLY so they can relate to their sinful peers. It was part of their qualifications.

Yes, which is why Jesus can relate. Because he was tempted as were are, “yet without sin”. In instances where this is no sin, a priest obviously wouldn’t have to offer a sacrifice for himself. Where there is no sin, there is of course no sacrifice.

Christ sacrificed himself for those requiring atonement, not for himself. - Can you please expound this verse for me? Heb 7:27 You see, Hebrews is making a meticulous analogy with Leviticus 16. You are destroying it with your pedantic "perfect sacrifice" "substituionary atonement" theory. So the verses don't cooperate with you.

First of all, I've never claimed a "substituionary atonement" theory. I've claimed Christ was sinless. Second of all, the verses cooperate perfectly. Lev 13:21 – A priest wasn't expected to shut random people up for seven days. He was only required to do so IF the skin looked a certain shape and colour. Likewise, Leviticus 4 states that ONLY IF a priest had a sinned, he must offer a sacrifice first.

2 Cor 5:21 “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” Jesus was CLEARLY sinless and so he wasn’t required to sacrifice anything for himself first.

No, one goat was killed for the priest, the other was sent to the woods, bearing the sins of the many.

See above. A bull was killed for the priest. Please read the text carefully.

Secondly, Jesus is always referred to as a lamb, never a bull. - Right. He was not an atonement. See? A passover, yes. A king's kid, yes. A sin offering, no.

Then you’ve got yourself a problem: if he wasn’t really a sin offering, you can’t claim he sacrificed himself to remove his own sins. I’ll spare you the awkwardness: lambs were unquestionably used as sin offerings (Lev 4:32, 5:6-7, Numb 6:14, John 1:29). The Passover sacrifice? Definitely! Jesus, a lamb without blemish, whose blood was shed so that death may “pass over” the righteous. Perfect.

...The raising did not effect justification for anyone. Faith is the whole deal. Romans 4:25 – Jesus was raised “for our justification” What is your point? That when he was resurrected, you were thereby justified? I think not.

My point is you were wrong. The raising of Christ did effect justification and faith isn’t the whole deal. Romans 5:18 “Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.”

Because it’s not a perfect nature since sinning is still a possibility. - So choice must be removed? Jesus was domesticated? Neutered?

Call it whatever you want. Christ put on immortality and incorruption – his sinful nature was done away with – his propensity to sin was done away with. The same change will occur in the righteous before they enter Christ’s kingdom.

The wages of sin is death. Sin corrupts. An incorruptible body is therefore one that doesn’t sin. - Whatever.

No, not whatever. Jesus never sinned. This is how he condemned sin. This is why he couldn’t be held by death.

Jesus had a sinful nature before his death. - Says who? - Says you. Says me. Says the Bible. - NO. I say he sinned, not that he had a "sinful nature." That is an absurdity.

Explain how Jesus could have sinned if he didn’t have a sinful nature?

NO. I say that there is no such thing as a "sinful nature." Sin is moral, and moral involves choice. And choice that is dictated by one's nature is not choice. You can't have a sin gene. That term is ignorant.

Sin is moral??? Gal 5:16-17 “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”

1Pe 2:11 “Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

1Pe 4:1-2 “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.”

1 John 2:16 “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.”

Call it whatever you want. Man’s sinful nature (lustful flesh) is constantly at odds with the ways of the Spirit. “Sinful nature” is a common and accepted term that Christians have been using for hundreds and hundreds of years to describe the nature inherent in everyone, one which runs contrary to the will of God. Christ possessed this sinful nature/lustful flesh. He was tempted on account of this sinful nature – yet he did not sin.

Jesus died to condemn sin - "he died to sin." This denotes a severing of relations.

Absolutely. Christ no longer has a relationship with sin. Corruption has put on incorruption.

...He didn’t need to do it because he didn’t sin. This is why death couldn’t “hold” him. - But you are skirting around the verse that says "this he DID once":

Yes, he sacrificed himself once. And because he was sinless, death couldn’t hold him and God raised him up three days later.

Heb 7:27 - Don't you feel cheap when you avoid the text and play diversionary tactics? Have you no integrity? Shame on you.

Once again, Leviticus 4 states a priest only had to offer sacrifice for himself IF he sinned. If he hadn’t sinned, no sacrifice was necessary. Jesus didn’t “know” sin. Jesus was a “spotless” and “unblemished” lamb. Jesus “did no sin”. I accept this for what it is: Jesus didn’t sin.

Let's see... you don't address texts you can't deal with, you make up terms and concepts you can't defend and then you say "the conclusion is the same." Well I guess so. "One cannot be reasoned out of that which they were not reasoned into."

You asked me to “read Leviticus” in response to my comment that since Christ had no sins of his own only one sacrifice was necessary – otherwise two would have been required. I’ve read Leviticus, many times, and nothing in it “presumes” sin in the priests. The Israelites were commanded to offer a sin offering when they sinned. It’s only logical to conclude that if someone isn’t sinning, they aren’t required to offer a sin offering! Therefore, “the conclusion is still the same - Christ didn't offer a sacrifice for himself because he was sinless.”

1 Peter 1:19 - To be a spotless lamb, one does not have to be impeccable - or to have never sinned:

Why are you referencing “blameless”? it's not even used in the verse we're discussing. 1 Peter 1:19 makes it clear that Christ fulfilled the role of the Passover lamb because he was the perfect sacrifice. Why? Because he was without sin, the only person in the history of Scripture to ever be considered “without blemish or spot”.

WoundedEgo said...

>>>You’re incorporating ideas that don’t exist. Christ is never said to have offered a sacrifice for his own cleansing. Ever.

What, in your understanding, does the word “this” mean in the following verse:

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for ***this*** he did once, when he offered up himself.

>>>Leviticus makes it clear that only IF a priest had sinned did they need to offer a sacrifice to atone for their sins. No sin, no sacrifice.

What, in your understanding, does the word “this” mean in the following verse:

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for ***this*** he did once, when he offered up himself.


>>>The bull was killed for the sins of the priest and one goat was killed as a sin offering for the people: Lev 16:15 “Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail,”

Actually, the bull was to cleanse the temple and the altar from the sins of the people in preparation for its use by the high priest. Read the whole passage:

Lev 16:15 ¶ Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:
16 And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.
17 And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel.
18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.
19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleanness of the children of Israel.
20 ¶ And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat:

Note that Hebrews refers to the cleansing of the altar:

Heb 9:23 ¶ It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves [should be purified] with better sacrifices than these.
24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, ***now to appear in the presence of God for us***:

So Hebrews says the temple and the altar were types of the sky versions. The same cleansing ritual, it says, had to be performed, but “with better sacrifices.”

>>>Jesus also wasn’t sent away alive into an uninhabited land. He was killed and by his own blood, he “entered into the holy place”.

EXACTLY. Before the priests could approach God each year, they had to shed blood for their sins. Jesus did the same thing, but only once, because it was permanent. So he entered ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN BLOOD:

Heb 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [everlasting release].

>>>Act 2:24 - God raised Christ up BECAUSE he was sinless. - It does not say that.
It doesn’t need to “say” it. The link is obvious: It was not possible that Christ should be “held” by death because the wages of sin is death. Christ didn't sin so he couldn't be bound by the laws of sin.

By your logic, it would have been impossible for him to die if prior to dying to sin he was in fact without sin.

In fact the passage harps back to the idea of his being "learned obedience" and "becoming obedient": Acts 2:28
Acts 2:28 doesn’t mention or even allude to obedience. The wages of sin is death. No sin, no death.

And yet he died. It does say he was taught the ways of life, which, by your logic, is “the ways of being without sin.”

>>>Christ wasn't therefore required to offer or present or sacrifice himself again. God's reward of immortality had already been given. - To whom?
Already answered.

To Jesus?

>>>...I have asked you repeatedly what you think the words "through the everlasting breath" mean and you have offered no opposing meaning to my interpretation - that he was alive forever: - Jesus died. He couldn't have been alive forever. - Sorry, I meant "alive for ever" or "he had everlasting life."
It doesn’t matter: Jesus still died. He couldn’t have had everlasting life. What does this have to do with Jesus sinning?

“Everlasting” – you know, as in endless, not beginning-less. What is meant by the words “through the everlasting breath”?

>>>This obviously isn’t required in an instance where there is no sin. - Hebrews argues that priests are taken from among men SPECIFICALLY so they can relate to their sinful peers. It was part of their qualifications.
Yes, which is why Jesus can relate. Because he was tempted as were are, “yet without sin”. In instances where this is no sin, a priest obviously wouldn’t have to offer a sacrifice for himself. Where there is no sin, there is of course no sacrifice.

Being tempted and not sinning does not allow you relate to “them that are out of the way.” They were tempted and did sin. Who would have compassion on a woman caught in adultery? A man who was tempted to commit adultery but remained faithful to his wife? Or a man who had done the same? (This probably can’t be predicted, but Hebrews says it would be second guy).

By the way, I love this joke:

Three men were standing in line to get into heaven one day. Apparently it had been a pretty busy day, though, so Peter had to tell the first one, "Heaven's getting pretty close to full today, and I've been asked to admit only people who have had particularly horrible deaths. So what's your story?"

So the first man replies: "Well, for a while I've suspected my wife has been cheating on me, so today I came home early to try to catch her red-handed. As I came into my 25th floor apartment, I could tell something was wrong, but all my searching around didn't reveal where this other guy could have been hiding. Finally, I went out to the balcony, and sure enough, there was this man hanging off the railing, 25 floors above ground! By now I was really mad, so I started beating on him and kicking him, but wouldn't you know it, he wouldn't fall off. So finally I went back into my apartment and got a hammer and starting hammering on his fingers. Of course, he couldn't stand that for long, so he let go and fell -- but even after 25 stories, he fell into the bushes, stunned but okay. I couldn't stand it anymore, so I ran into the kitchen, grabbed the fridge and threw it over the edge where it landed on him, killing him instantly. But all the stress and anger got to me, and I had a heart attack and died there on the balcony."

"That sounds like a pretty bad day to me," said Peter, and let the man in.

The second man comes up and Peter explains to him about heaven being full, and again asks for his story.

"It's been a very strange day. You see, I live on the 26th floor of my apartment building, and every morning I do my exercises out on my balcony. Well, this morning I must have slipped or something, because I fell over the edge. But I got lucky, and caught the railing of the balcony on the floor below me. I knew I couldn't hang on for very long, when suddenly this man burst out onto the balcony. I thought for sure I was saved, when he started beating on me and kicking me. I held on the best I could until he ran into the apartment and grabbed a hammer and started pounding on my hands. Finally I just let go, but again I got lucky and fell into the bushes below, stunned but all right. Just when I was thinking I was going to be okay, this refrigerator comes falling out of the sky and crushes me instantly, and now I'm here."

Once again, Peter had to concede that that sounded like a pretty horrible death.

The third man came to the front of the line, and again Peter explained that heaven was full and asked for his story.

"Picture this," says the third man, "I'm hiding inside a refrigerator..."


>>>>Christ sacrificed himself for those requiring atonement, not for himself. - Can you please expound this verse for me? Heb 7:27 You see, Hebrews is making a meticulous analogy with Leviticus 16. You are destroying it with your pedantic "perfect sacrifice" "substitutionary atonement" theory. So the verses don't cooperate with you.
First of all, I've never claimed a "substitutionary atonement" theory. I've claimed Christ was sinless. Second of all, the verses cooperate perfectly. Lev 13:21 – A priest wasn't expected to shut random people up for seven days. He was only required to do so IF the skin looked a certain shape and colour. Likewise, Leviticus 4 states that ONLY IF a priest had a sinned, he must offer a sacrifice first.

What, in your understanding, does the word “this” mean in the following verse:

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for ***this*** he did once, when he offered up himself.



>>>>2 Cor 5:21 “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” Jesus was CLEARLY sinless and so he wasn’t required to sacrifice anything for himself first.

I’ve dealt with this verse previously. “made sin” means “committed sin” not “made into sin.” And “knew not sin” means “did not recognize sin.” “Did he who did not recognize sin commit sin that we might become God’s righteousness by his agency?”

>>>>No, one goat was killed for the priest, the other was sent to the woods, bearing the sins of the many.
See above. A bull was killed for the priest. Please read the text carefully.

You are absolutely right:

• a bull for the priest (to prepare the priest)
• a goat for the people (to cleanse the holy place)
• a living goat to carry away the transgressions of the people (the actual target event)

The first two are preparatory actions for the third.

>>>>Secondly, Jesus is always referred to as a lamb, never a bull. - Right. He was not an atonement. See? A passover, yes. A king's kid, yes. A sin offering, no.
Then you’ve got yourself a problem: if he wasn’t really a sin offering, you can’t claim he sacrificed himself to remove his own sins.

You use the term “really.” This is an inappropriate term to use in a discussion of the Bible! The question is, do the scriptures ever assign that meaning… I say that they never speak of Jesus as an “atonement” but rather as a propitiation. In reference to his own death, the meanings assigned are:

• he died to sin
• he experienced a “taste” of death
• he ratified a new covenant

In his resurrection:

• he found everlasting release from sin and death
• he lived to God
• he became the object of justifying faith

In his ascension:

• he became the leader of the “free world”
• he became high priest – to administer the new covenant
• he became a source to his people

The meaning you assign to his death is that:

• he suffered sinlessly (contrast with “died to sin”)
• he justified people (contrast with justification by faith in the resurrection)
• he made an atonement to effect people’s justification (never said to be an atonement)

>>>I’ll spare you the awkwardness: lambs were unquestionably used as sin offerings (Lev 4:32, 5:6-7, Numb 6:14, John 1:29).

Lev 4:32, Lev 5:6-7 – females only. Male lambs were never used.
John 1:29 – says nothing about sacrifice and everything about military action.

>>The Passover sacrifice? Definitely! Jesus, a lamb without blemish, whose blood was shed so that death may “pass over” the righteous. Perfect.

But no part of the sacrificial system. It was about release from a slave system. It was not a sin issue at all.

>>>...The raising did not effect justification for anyone. Faith is the whole deal. Romans 4:25 – Jesus was raised “for our justification” What is your point? That when he was resurrected, you were thereby justified? I think not.
My point is you were wrong. The raising of Christ did effect justification and faith isn’t the whole deal. Romans 5:18 “Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.”

So were you justified before believing? The correct translation is “justification of life.” The idea is that God is justified to give you life on the basis of faith.

>>>Because it’s not a perfect nature since sinning is still a possibility. - So choice must be removed? Jesus was domesticated? Neutered?
Call it whatever you want. Christ put on immortality and incorruption – his sinful nature was done away with – his propensity to sin was done away with. The same change will occur in the righteous before they enter Christ’s kingdom.

You continue to equate “corruption” with a “sinful nature.” You are proof texting – taking an irrelevant verse and pressing it to serve your thesis, while ignoring what the text actually says: that Jesus died to sin and whoever is dead is free from sin.

>>>The wages of sin is death. Sin corrupts. An incorruptible body is therefore one that doesn’t sin. - Whatever.
No, not whatever. Jesus never sinned. This is how he condemned sin. This is why he couldn’t be held by death.

The Greek makes it a lot clearer that this verse is not saying that it was a theoretical impossibility but rather that death’s grip was not strong enough. This clearly does not say what you want it to say. The words don’t mean that.

>>>Jesus had a sinful nature before his death. - Says who? - Says you. Says me. Says the Bible. - NO. I say he sinned, not that he had a "sinful nature." That is an absurdity.
Explain how Jesus could have sinned if he didn’t have a sinful nature?

Did Adam have a “sinful nature?” Was he created with a sinful nature? Were his muscle made with sin dwelling in them? You tell me!

>>NO. I say that there is no such thing as a "sinful nature." Sin is moral, and moral involves choice. And choice that is dictated by one's nature is not choice. You can't have a sin gene. That term is ignorant.
Sin is moral??? Gal 5:16-17 “This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.”

“Shall” is an archaic form of the imperative, not of the indicative. That means it is not “and you will not” but “and you must not.” So yes, it is moral. There is choice. That is why he is writing this. Ditto for “abstain” in 1 Peter 2:11 and “arm yourselves” in 1 Peter 4:1-2 (because it is a war).

>>>1 John 2:16 “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.”

Ditto: “love not.”

>>>Call it whatever you want. Man’s sinful nature (lustful flesh) is constantly at odds with the ways of the Spirit.

“Spirit” is not a biblical word. “Breath” is the word you should be mentioning. And “sinful nature” is not biblical (though NIV is working on it) so you should not use that term either. “Lustful flesh” – while not anatomically correct – is pretty close:

Ga 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall [imperative] not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
1Jo 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

But lust is not sin, unless it conceives:

Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

So to die to sin, is not to die to lust (strong desire). Sin is another animal altogether.

>>>“Sinful nature” is a common and accepted term that Christians have been using for hundreds and hundreds of years to describe the nature inherent in everyone, one which runs contrary to the will of God.

And “blood letting” was a common and accepted practice for many years. It doesn’t make it acceptable. Get rid of it.

>>>Christ possessed this sinful nature/lustful flesh.

Lustful flesh, yes, sinful nature, no.

>>>He was tempted on account of this sinful nature – yet he did not sin.

IF YOU ARE WILLING TO CONSISTENTLY USE THE TERM “SINFUL NATURE” TO MEAN, AND ONLY MEAN, “LUSTFUL FLESH” THEN – AND ONLY THEN – WILL I ALLOW THE TERM. (It does not mean that to anyone else). If we accept that definition, then yes, he was tempted on account of his “sinful nature” (by which we mean “lustful flesh.” But he was also tempted by his lustful eyes and his pride of life – if he was tempted at every point that we are. His emotions would crave sexual intimacy with men. He would secretly desire status and prestige. He would contemplate throwing himself in front of a bus (or from the pinnacle of a temple). He would have the urge to put on women’s clothing (can you imagine Jesus in a belly dancing outfit?) and he would be “this close” to giving the finger to the guy that cut him off in traffic. This is so much more than the term “lustful flesh” will allow. It is the wrong term. Do yourself a favor and break with the stoooopid people. DITCH THE TERM. It is a loser.

>>>Jesus died to condemn sin - "he died to sin." This denotes a severing of relations.
Absolutely. Christ no longer has a relationship with sin. Corruption has put on incorruption.

The word translated as “corruption” appears 8 times in the NT.

Ro 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption <5356> into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
1Co 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption <5356>; it is raised in incorruption:
1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption <5356> inherit incorruption.
Ga 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption <5356>; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Col 2:22 Which all are to perish <5356> with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption <5356> that is in the world through lust.
2Pe 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed <5356>, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption <5356>;
2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption <5356>: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

There is only one of these verses that might suggest more than physical corruption, and we dealt with the issue earlier. The escape is not through change at the resurrection.

>>...He didn’t need to do it because he didn’t sin. This is why death couldn’t “hold” him. - But you are skirting around the verse that says "this he DID once":
Yes, he sacrificed himself once. And because he was sinless, death couldn’t hold him and God raised him up three days later.

What, in your understanding, does the word “this” mean in the following verse:

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for ***this*** he did once, when he offered up himself.


>>Heb 7:27 - Don't you feel cheap when you avoid the text and play diversionary tactics? Have you no integrity? Shame on you.
Once again, Leviticus 4 states a priest only had to offer sacrifice for himself IF he sinned. If he hadn’t sinned, no sacrifice was necessary. Jesus didn’t “know” sin. Jesus was a “spotless” and “unblemished” lamb. Jesus “did no sin”. I accept this for what it is: Jesus didn’t sin.

What, in your understanding, does the word “this” mean in the following verse:

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for ***this*** he did once, when he offered up himself.

>>>Let's see... you don't address texts you can't deal with, you make up terms and concepts you can't defend and then you say "the conclusion is the same." Well I guess so. "One cannot be reasoned out of that which they were not reasoned into."
You asked me to “read Leviticus” in response to my comment that since Christ had no sins of his own only one sacrifice was necessary – otherwise two would have been required. I’ve read Leviticus, many times, and nothing in it “presumes” sin in the priests. The Israelites were commanded to offer a sin offering when they sinned. It’s only logical to conclude that if someone isn’t sinning, they aren’t required to offer a sin offering! Therefore, “the conclusion is still the same - Christ didn't offer a sacrifice for himself because he was sinless.”

What, in your understanding, does the word “this” mean in the following verse:

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for ***this*** he did once, when he offered up himself.

>>>1 Peter 1:19 - To be a spotless lamb, one does not have to be impeccable - or to have never sinned:
Why are you referencing “blameless”? it's not even used in the verse we're discussing. 1 Peter 1:19 makes it clear that Christ fulfilled the role of the Passover lamb because he was the perfect sacrifice. Why? Because he was without sin, the only person in the history of Scripture to ever be considered “without blemish or spot”.

Every lamb the Israelites offered was without blemish and without spot. The word translated “without blemish” is really a Greek word meaning “blameless” as I illustrate below:

Eph 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame <299> before him in love:
Eph 5:27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish <299>.
Col 1:22 In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable <299> and unreproveable in his sight:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot <299> to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
1Pe 1:19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish <299> and without spot:
Jude 1:24 Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless <299> before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
Re 14:5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault <299> before the throne of God.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jason said...

Actually, the bull was to cleanse the temple and the altar from the sins of the people in preparation for its use by the high priest. Read the whole passage:

No. Lev 16:6 “And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself….”

Jesus also wasn’t sent away alive into an uninhabited land. He was killed and by his own blood, he “entered into the holy place”. - EXACTLY. Before the priests could approach God each year, they had to shed blood for their sins. Jesus did the same thing, but only once, because it was permanent. So he entered ON THE BASIS OF HIS OWN BLOOD:

This isn’t a point of debate. As the high priest entered into the holy place with blood, so did Jesus – who bore the sins of many.

By your logic, it would have been impossible for him to die if prior to dying to sin he was in fact without sin.

The wages of sin is death. No sin, no death. BTW, prove to me that “dying to sin” means a cessation of transgressing God’s laws.

In fact the passage harps back to the idea of his being "learned obedience" and "becoming obedient": Acts 2:28 - Acts 2:28 doesn’t mention or even allude to obedience. The wages of sin is death. No sin, no death. - And yet he died. It does say he was taught the ways of life, which, by your logic, is “the ways of being without sin.”

Jesus “sacrificed” himself. He offered up his body. This is why he died. I don’t see why you’re being argumentative about this.

Christ wasn't therefore required to offer or present or sacrifice himself again. God's reward of immortality had already been given. - To whom? - Already answered. - To Jesus?

Yes.

What is meant by the words “through the everlasting breath”?

Explain the relevance because I’m not interested in going off on another tangent. What does “everlasting” have to do with Jesus sinning?

Being tempted and not sinning does not allow you relate to “them that are out of the way.”

The Bible disagrees. Jesus related because he was tempted, not because he sinned. It’s right there in the text. He was “without sin”. How can you argue this point?

They were tempted and did sin. Who would have compassion on a woman caught in adultery?

Someone who understood temptation.

What, in your understanding, does the word “this” mean in the following verse: Heb 7:27

Already explained. Leviticus 4 is clear: No sin, no sacrifice. Was a priest expected to lock random people up for seven days or only lock them up IF the skin looked a certain shape and colour? Which is it?

2 Cor 5:21 - I’ve dealt with this verse previously. “made sin” means “committed sin” not “made into sin.” And “knew not sin” means “did not recognize sin.” “Did he who did not recognize sin commit sin that we might become God’s righteousness by his agency?”

You’re kidding, right? God made Jesus commit sin even though Jesus couldn’t recognize the sins he was being made to commit? Who told him he was sinning if he couldn’t recognize it? And for what purpose did God make Jesus commit sins for us? And why are you using “commit” as a definition for “made sin”. Of the 579 times this Greek words is used, it’s translated as “commit” only eight times versus 113 times as “make”. This alone is grounds to reject your theory. Try again please.

He was not an atonement. See? A passover, yes. A king's kid, yes. A sin offering, no. - Then you’ve got yourself a problem: if he wasn’t really a sin offering, you can’t claim he sacrificed himself to remove his own sins. - You use the term “really.” This is an inappropriate term to use in a discussion of the Bible!

Red herring. If Jesus wasn’t a sin offering, you can’t claim he sacrificed himself to remove his own sins.

The meaning you assign to his death is that:
• he suffered sinlessly (contrast with “died to sin”)
• he justified people (contrast with justification by faith in the resurrection)
• he made an atonement to effect people’s justification (never said to be an atonement)


1. Died to sin and died sinlessly aren’t contrasts since believers are told to reckon themselves as dead unto sin also, even though they keep sinning. The phrase you’re looking for is “died IN sin” which Jesus isn’t said to have done. Died to sin simply means being freed from the bonds of sin, that is, death. Hence, the righteous will one day be raised to immortality.
2. Romans 4:25
3. Romans 4:25

Lev 4:32, Lev 5:6-7 – females only. Male lambs were never used.

Irrelevant. Contrary to what you said previously, lambs were unquestionably used as sin offerings. Not that you've ever really cared anyway since you've already stated Christ wasn't a sin offering.

John 1:29 – says nothing about sacrifice and everything about military action.

Here’s the verse: “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Kindly point out where this verse is talking “everything about military action”.

The Passover sacrifice? Definitely! Jesus, a lamb without blemish, whose blood was shed so that death may “pass over” the righteous. Perfect. - But no part of the sacrificial system. It was about release from a slave system. It was not a sin issue at all.

A release from a slave system? Hardly. Read Exodus 12. The Passover was a death issue. Christ’s blood will save the righteous, the blood of the Passover lamb saved the faithful Israelites. Nothing to do with slaves, I'm afraid!

Romans 4:25 – My point is you were wrong. The raising of Christ did effect justification and faith isn’t the whole deal. Romans 5:18 “Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” - So were you justified before believing? The correct translation is “justification of life.” The idea is that God is justified to give you life on the basis of faith.

Like I've already said, I was simply pointing out you were wrong. The rest is an irrelevant tangent.

Because it’s not a perfect nature since sinning is still a possibility. - So choice must be removed? Jesus was domesticated? Neutered? - Call it whatever you want. Christ put on immortality and incorruption – his sinful nature was done away with – his propensity to sin was done away with. The same change will occur in the righteous before they enter Christ’s kingdom. - You continue to equate “corruption” with a “sinful nature.” You are proof texting – taking an irrelevant verse and pressing it to serve your thesis, while ignoring what the text actually says: that Jesus died to sin and whoever is dead is free from sin.

This is where you’re getting stuck. Died to sin isn’t sinlessness and I would challenge you to prove it is. Believers are told to be “dead to sin” as well but since transgression against God’s law continues, “died to sin” simply means being freed from the bonds of sin – the righteous will be resurrected in the same way Christ was.

The wages of sin is death. Sin corrupts. An incorruptible body is therefore one that doesn’t sin. - Whatever. - No, not whatever. Jesus never sinned. This is how he condemned sin. This is why he couldn’t be held by death. - The Greek makes it a lot clearer that this verse is not saying that it was a theoretical impossibility but rather that death’s grip was not strong enough. This clearly does not say what you want it to say. The words don’t mean that.

Of course death’s grip wasn’t strong enough: Jesus didn’t sin. It’s a simple, simple concept if you accept it for what it is: the wages of sin is death.

Gal 5:16-17 - “Shall” is an archaic form of the imperative, not of the indicative. That means it is not “and you will not” but “and you must not.” So yes, it is moral. There is choice. That is why he is writing this. Ditto for “abstain” in 1 Peter 2:11 and “arm yourselves” in 1 Peter 4:1-2 (because it is a war).

This is completely irrelevant and I question if you’re being evasive for a reason... The point of the reference, if you would simply go back and read the exchange, is that Scripture always contrasts two “natures” (or whatever you want to call them): one that obeys God and one that obeys the flesh. The nature of the flesh is at constant enmity with the spirit, or will of God. This is what Christ was fighting in the Garden – sinful nature. That is, to go against the will of God by not following through with his sacrifice.

1 John 2:16 “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.” - Ditto: “love not.”

Evasive and irrelevant. “All that is in the world” (lust and pride) is contrasted with the things of the “Father”.

Call it whatever you want. Man’s sinful nature (lustful flesh) is constantly at odds with the ways of the Spirit. - “Spirit” is not a biblical word. “Breath” is the word you should be mentioning.

Red herring. My point remains: man’s sinful nature (his sinful flesh) is constantly at odds with the ways of the Spirit. Jesus had a sinful nature, he could be tempted, yet he didn’t sin. Why do you reject this?

And “sinful nature” is not biblical (though NIV is working on it) so you should not use that term either. “Lustful flesh” – while not anatomically correct – is pretty close:

Reincarnation isn’t Biblical either.

But lust is not sin, unless it conceives: Jas 1:15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

That’s right. Hence, Jesus was tempted as we are, “YET WITHOUT SIN”.

So to die to sin, is not to die to lust (strong desire).

I’ve never said it is.

And “blood letting” was a common and accepted practice for many years. It doesn’t make it acceptable. Get rid of it.

Red herring. The only one who has a problem with “sinful nature” is you. It really makes no difference what you call it – call it the ways of the flesh, call it the desire to sin, it doesn’t matter. Christ had it – yet he never sinned.

Christ possessed this sinful nature/lustful flesh. Lustful flesh, yes, sinful nature, no.

Semantics. They’re the same thing as far as a Christian is concerned.

IF YOU ARE WILLING TO CONSISTENTLY USE THE TERM “SINFUL NATURE” TO MEAN, AND ONLY MEAN, “LUSTFUL FLESH” THEN – AND ONLY THEN – WILL I ALLOW THE TERM.

I’ll continue to use the term in the same manner I’ve been using all along: mankind possesses a nature that is at odds with the will of God. Jesus possessed this nature – yet he didn’t sin.

(It does not mean that to anyone else).

Every major branch of Christianity uses the term “sinful nature” in exactly the same way I’ve been using it here. Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, you name it. People have been using the term for almost 2000 years to describe the sinful nature inherent in man that fights the will of God.

If we accept that definition, then yes, he was tempted on account of his “sinful nature” (by which we mean “lustful flesh.” But he was also tempted by his lustful eyes and his pride of life – if he was tempted at every point that we are.

I’ve never claimed “sinful nature” applies only to one ‘kind’ of lust. This isn’t a Biblical principal. Jesus was tempted in “all points” as we are – yet without sin.

His emotions would crave sexual intimacy with men. He would secretly desire status and prestige. He would contemplate throwing himself in front of a bus (or from the pinnacle of a temple). He would have the urge to put on women’s clothing (can you imagine Jesus in a belly dancing outfit?) and he would be “this close” to giving the finger to the guy that cut him off in traffic.

Yes, and yet through all that, he was still without sin.

This is so much more than the term “lustful flesh” will allow. It is the wrong term. Do yourself a favor and break with the stoooopid people. DITCH THE TERM. It is a loser.

You’re the only one here putting limitations on the phrase.

Jesus died to condemn sin - "he died to sin." This denotes a severing of relations. - Absolutely. Christ no longer has a relationship with sin. Corruption has put on incorruption. - The word translated as “corruption” appears 8 times in the NT. There is only one of these verses that might suggest more than physical corruption, and we dealt with the issue earlier. The escape is not through change at the resurrection.

Stay on topic please. You said Christ “severed” relations with sin when he died. I happily agree with you.

Christ didn't offer a sacrifice for himself because he was sinless.” - What, in your understanding, does the word “this” mean in the following verse: Heb 7:27

I don’t mind playing this game for as long as you’d like. Hebrews 7:27 doesn’t prove Jesus sinned. It simply says he offered a sacrifice once. An OT priest would have offered a sacrifice only once as well if he hadn’t sinned. See Lev 4:3.

1 Peter 1:19 - Every lamb the Israelites offered was without blemish and without spot. The word translated “without blemish” is really a Greek word meaning “blameless” as I illustrate below:

And? In all of these verses, people are either instructed to be without blemish (Eph 1:4) or they’re presented as being “without blemish” because of Christ. This goes back to the point: Christ fulfilled the role of the Passover lamb because he was without sin. No one else was able to do what he did on account of their sinning.

WoundedEgo said...

>>Actually, the bull was to cleanse the temple and the altar from the sins of the people in preparation for its use by the high priest. Read the whole passage:
No. Lev 16:6 “And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself….”

You’re right:

• bull: priest
• 1st goat: temple/altar
• 2nd goat: (alive) remove sin

>> By your logic, it would have been impossible for him to die if prior to dying to sin he was in fact without sin.
The wages of sin is death. No sin, no death. BTW, prove to me that “dying to sin” means a cessation of transgressing God’s laws.

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.

>>Here’s the verse: “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Kindly point out where this verse is talking “everything about military action”.

Here’s HOW he takes away the sin of the world:

Mt 3:12 Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

As well as John’s other account of the lamb:

Re 17:14 These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

>>Evasive and irrelevant. “All that is in the world” (lust and pride) is contrasted with the things of the “Father”.

The term “world” as John uses it is “lost community.”

But, this is not going anywhere so I’ll not waste any more time on it.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jason said...

By your logic, it would have been impossible for him to die if prior to dying to sin he was in fact without sin. - The wages of sin is death. No sin, no death. BTW, prove to me that “dying to sin” means a cessation of transgressing God’s laws. - Romans 6:6

That’s your proof? Dying to sin isn’t being proven as a cessation of transgressing God’s laws with these verses. Once again, this chapter is talking about baptism - Rom 6:3 “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?” It's a symbolic death. The “sin” in this chapter isn’t talking about individual transgressions. Sin in this chapter is death. Believers no longer serve death after they’re baptized into the death of Christ. They continue to commit sin, yes, but they’re not held by the bonds of sin

There is no teaching anywhere in the NT that righteous believers cease to commit sin upon their baptism. 1 John 1:8 “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”

Here’s the verse: “The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” Kindly point out where this verse is talking “everything about military action”. - Here’s HOW he takes away the sin of the world…

No, I asked where in John 1:29 does it talk about military action. Why would the people hearing the words of John have inherently understood he was talking about military action?
Mat 3:12 doesn’t talk about military action and Rev 17:14 doesn’t talk about taking away sin. Using the context, John is simply exclaiming that Christ will take away sins of the world. Scripture tells us he did so through his death.

“All that is in the world” (lust and pride) is contrasted with the things of the “Father”. - The term “world” as John uses it is “lost community.”

No it’s not. “World” is the Greek word “kosmos”. Where are you getting “lost community from”?

But, this is not going anywhere so I’ll not waste any more time on it.

I’d be happy to show you where it’s going if you'd answer this question: Was a priest expected to lock random people up for seven days or only lock them up IF the skin looked a certain shape and colour?

WoundedEgo said...

>>>No it’s not. “World” is the Greek word “kosmos”. Where are you getting “lost community from”?

******************
See BDAG entry 7b:

κόσμος, ου, ὁ (Hom.+)
① that which serves to beautify through decoration, adornment, adorning (Hom.+; Diod S 20, 4, 5 τῶν γυναικῶν τὸν κόσμον; OGI 531, 13; SIG 850, 10; IMaronIsis 41; PEleph 1, 4; PSI 240, 12 γυναικεῖον κόσμον; LXX; TestJud 12:1; JosAs 2:6 al.; Philo, Migr. Abr. 97 γυναικῶν κ.; Jos., Ant. 1, 250; 15, 5; Just., A II, 11, 4f) of women’s attire, etc. ὁ ἔξωθεν … κόσμος external adorning 1 Pt 3:3 (Vi. Hom. 4 of the inward adornment of a woman, beside σωφροσύνη; Crates, Ep. 9; Pythag., Ep. 11, 1; Plut., Mor. 141e; on the topic of external adornment cp. SIG 736, 15–26).
② condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order (Hom. et al.; s. HDiller, Die vorphilosophische Gebrauch von κ. und κοσμεῖν: BSnell Festschr., ’56, 47–60) μετὰ κόσμου in order Dg 12:9 (text uncertain; s. μετακόσμιος).
③ the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage (so, acc. to Plut., Mor. 886b, as early as Pythagoras; certainly Heraclitus, Fgm. 66; Pla., Gorg. 508a, Phdr. 246c; Chrysipp., Fgm. 527 v. Arnim κόσμος σύστημα ἐξ οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις περιεχομένων φύσεων. Likew. Posidonius in Diog. L. 7, 138; Ps.-Aristot., De Mundo 2 p. 391b, 9ff; 2 and 4 Macc; Wsd; EpArist 254; Philo, Aet. M. 4; Jos., Ant. 1, 21; Test12Patr; SibOr 7, 123; AssMos Fgm. b Denis [=Tromp p. 272]; Just., A I, 20, 2 al.; Ath. 19, 2 al.; Orig., C. Cels. 4, 68, 14; Did., Gen. 36, 7; 137, 13.—The other philosoph. usage, in which κ. denotes the heaven in contrast to the earth, is prob. without mng. for our lit. [unless perh. Phil 2:15 κ.=‘sky’?]). ἡ ἀέναος τοῦ κ. σύστασις the everlasting constitution of the universe 1 Cl 60:1 (cp. OGI 56, 48 εἰς τὸν ἀέναον κ.). Sustained by four elements Hv 3, 13, 3. πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κ. εἶναι before the world existed J 17:5. ἀπὸ καταβολῆς [κόσμου] from the beginning of the world Mt 13:35; 25:34; Lk 11:50; Hb 4:3; 9:26; Rv 13:8; 17:8. Also ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς κ. Mt 24:21 or ἀπὸ κτίσεως κ. Ro 1:20.—B 5:5 ἀπὸ καταβ. κ. evidently means at the foundation of the world (s. Windisch, Hdb. ad loc.). πρὸ καταβολῆς κ. before the foundation of the world J 17:24; Eph 1:4; 1 Pt 1:20 (on the uses w. καταβολή s. that word, 1). οὐδὲν εἴδωλον ἐν κ. no idol has any real existence in the universe (Twentieth Century NT) 1 Cor 8:4. Of the creation in its entirety 3:22. ὁ κόσμος ὅλος = πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις (Sallust. 21 p. 36, 13; TestSol 5:7; TestJob 33:4) Hs 9, 2, 1; 9, 14, 5. φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ stars in the universe Phil 2:15 (s. above). Esp. of the universe as created by God (Epict 4, 7, 6 ὁ θεὸς πάντα πεποίηκεν, τὰ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν κόσμον ὅλον; Wsd 9:9; 2 Macc 7:23 ὁ τοῦ κ. κτίστης; 4 Macc 5:25; Just., A I, 59, 1 al.; Ath. 8, 2 al.) ὁ ποιήσας τὸν κ. who has made the world Ac 17:24. ὁ κτίστης τοῦ σύμπαντος κ. 1 Cl 19:2; ὁ κτίσας τὸν κ. Hv 1, 3, 4; cp. m 12, 4, 2. ὁ τοῦ παντὸς κ. κυριεύων B 21:5. οὐδʼ εἶναι τὸν κόσμον θεοῦ ἀλλὰ ἀγγέλων AcPlCor 1:15. Christ is called παντὸς τοῦ κ. κύριος 5:5; and the κ. owes its origin to his agency J 1:10b. The world was created for the sake of the church Hv 2, 4, 1.—The universe, as the greatest space conceivable, is not able to contain someth. (Philo, Ebr. 32) J 21:25.
④ the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals, the world, as θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν (i.e. οἱ ἀπόστολοι) τῷ κόσμῳ καὶ ἀγγέλοις καὶ ἀνθρώποις 1 Cor 4:9. Here the world is divided into angels and humans (cp. the Stoic definition of the κόσμος in Stob., Ecl. I p. 184, 8 τὸ ἐκ θεῶν καὶ ἀνθρώπων σύστημα; likew. Epict 1, 9, 4.—Acc. to Ocellus Luc. 37, end, the κ. consists of the sphere of the divine beyond the moon and the sphere of the earthly on this side of the moon).
⑤ planet earth as a place of inhabitation, the world (SIG 814, 31 [67 a.d.] Nero, ὁ τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου κύριος; the meaning of the birthday of Augustus for the world OGI 458, 40 [=IPriene 105]; 2 Macc 3:12; Jos., Ant. 9, 241; 10, 205; Orig., C. Cels. 4, 68)
ⓐ gener. Mk 16:15. τὰς βασιλείας τοῦ κ. Mt 4:8; ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κ. 26:13. Cp. 13:38 (cp. Hs 5, 5, 2); Mk 14:9; Hs 9, 25, 2. τὸ φῶς τοῦ κ. τούτου the light of this world (the sun) J 11:9. In rhetorical exaggeration ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν καταγγέλλεται ἐν ὅλῳ τ. κόσμῳ Ro 1:8 (cp. the Egypt. grave ins APF 5, 1913, 169 no. 24, 8 ὧν ἡ σωφροσύνη κατὰ τὸν κ. λελάληται). Abraham as κληρονόμος κόσμου heir of the world 4:13.—Cp. 1 Cor 14:10; Col 1:6. ἡ ἐν τῷ κ. ἀδελφότης the brotherhood in the (whole) world 1 Pt 5:9. ἐγένετο ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ κ. τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν our Lord has assumed the sovereignty of the world Rv 11:15. τὰ ἔθνη τοῦ κ. (not LXX, but prob. rabbinic אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם=humankind apart fr. Israel; Billerb. II 191; Dalman, Worte 144f) the unconverted in the world Lk 12:30. In this line of development, κόσμος alone serves to designate the polytheistic unconverted world Ro 11:12, 15.—Other worlds (lands) beyond the ocean 1 Cl 20:8.—Many of these pass. bear the connotation of
ⓑ the world as the habitation of humanity (as SibOr 1, 160). So also Hs 9, 17, 1f. εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κ. of entrance into the world by being born 1 Cl 38:3. ἐκ τοῦ κ. ἐξελθεῖν leave this present world (Philo, Leg. All. 3, 5 ἔξω τ. κόσμου φεύγειν; s. ἐξέρχομαι 5; cp. Hippol., Ref. 5, 16, 7) 1 Cor 5:10b; 2 Cl 8:3. γεννηθῆναι εἰς τὸν κ. be born into the world J 16:21. ἕως ἐσμὲν ἐν τούτῳ τῷ κ. 2 Cl 8:2. οὐδὲν εἰσφέρειν εἰς τὸν κ. (Philo, Spec. Leg. 1, 294 τὸν μηδὲν εἰς τὸν κόσμον εἰσενηνοχότα) 1 Ti 6:7 (Pol 4:1). πολλοὶ πλάνοι ἐξῆλθον εἰς τὸν κ. 2J 7.—ἐν τῷ κόσμω τούτῳ J 12:25 (κ. need not here be understood as an entity hostile to God, but the transition to the nuance in 7b, below, is signalled by the term that follows: ζωὴν αἰώνιον). ἵνα εἰς κόσμον προέλθῃ AcPlCor 2:6.
ⓒ earth, world in contrast to heaven (Dio Chrys. 19 [36], 59; Iren., 1, 4, 2 [Harv. I 35, 5]; Orig., C. Cels. 8, 15, 24) ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ τούτῳ 2 Cl 19:3.—Esp. when mention is made of the preexistent Christ, who came fr. another world into the κόσμος. So, above all, in John (Bultmann, index I κόσμος) ἔρχεσθαι εἰς τὸν κ. (τοῦτον) J 6:14; 9:39; 11:27; 16:28a; 18:37; specif. also come into the world as light 12:46; cp. 1:9; 3:19. Sending of Jesus into the world 3:17a; 10:36; 17:18; 1J 4:9. His εἶναι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ J 1:10a; 9:5a; 17:12 v.l. Leaving the world and returning to the Father 13:1a; 16:28b. Cp. 14:19; 17:11a. His kingship is not ἐκ τοῦ κ. τούτου of this world i.e. not derived from the world or conditioned by its terms and evaluations 18:36ab.—Also Χρ. Ἰησοῦς ἦλθεν εἰς τ. κόσμον 1 Ti 1:15; cp. ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ (opp. ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ) 3:16.—εἰσερχόμενος εἰς τὸν κ. Hb 10:5.
ⓓ the world outside in contrast to one’s home PtK 3 p. 15, 13; 19.
⑥ humanity in general, the world (TestAbr B 8 p. 113, 11 [Stone p. 74]; ApcEsdr 3:6 p. 27, 14; SibOr 1, 189; Just., A I, 39, 3 al.)
ⓐ gener. οὐαὶ τῷ κ. ἀπὸ τῶν σκανδάλων woe to humankind because of the things that cause people to sin Mt 18:7; τὸ φῶς τοῦ κ. the light for humanity 5:14; cp. J 8:12; 9:5. ὁ σωτὴρ τοῦ κ. 4:42; 1J 4:14 (this designation is found in inscriptions, esp. oft. of Hadrian [WWeber, Untersuchungen z. Geschichte des Kaisers Hadrianus 1907, 225; 226; 229]).—J 1:29; 3:17b; 17:6.—κρίνειν τὸν κ. (SibOr 4, 184; TestAbr A 13 p. 92, 11 [Stone p. 32]; ApcMos 37) of God, Christ J 12:47a; Ro 3:6; B 4:12; cp. Ro 3:19. Of believers 1 Cor 6:2ab (cp. Sallust. 21 p. 36, 13 the souls of the virtuous, together w. the gods, will rule the whole κόσμος). Of Noah διʼ ἧς (sc. πίστεως) κατέκρινεν τὸν κ. Hb 11:7. ἡ ἁμαρτία εἰς τὸν κ. εἰσῆλθεν Ro 5:12; likew. θάνατος εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν κ. 1 Cl 3:4 (Wsd 2:24; 14:14). Cp. Ro 5:13; 1 Cor 1:27f. περικαθάρματα τοῦ κ. the refuse of humanity 4:13. Of persons before conversion ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κ. Eph 2:12.—2 Cor 1:12; 5:19; Js 2:5; 1J 2:2; 4:1, 3. ἀρχαῖος κόσμος the people of the ancient world 2 Pt 2:5a; cp. vs. 5b; 3:6. Of pers. of exceptional merit: ὧν οὐκ ἦν ἄξιος ὁ κ. of whom the world was not worthy Hb 11:38.—ὅλος ὁ κ. all the world, everybody Ac 2:47 D; 1 Cl 5:7; cp. ἐν ὅλῳ τῷ κ. 59:2; εἰς ὅλον τὸν κ. Hs 8, 3, 2. Likew. ὁ κόσμος (cp. Philo, De Prov. in Eus., PE 8, 14, 58) ὁ κ. ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ ἀπῆλθεν J 12:19. ταῦτα λαλῶ εἰς τὸν κ. 8:26; ἐν τῷ κ. 17:13; ἐγὼ παρρησίᾳ λελάληκα τῷ κ. 18:20; cp. 7:4; 14:22. ἵνα γνῷ ὁ κ. 14:31; cp. 17:23; ἵνα ὁ κ. πιστεύῃ 17:21.
ⓑ of all humanity, but especially of believers, as the object of God’s love J 3:16, 17c; 6:33, 51; 12:47b.
⑦ the system of human existence in its many aspects, the world
ⓐ as scene of earthly joys, possessions, cares, sufferings (cp. 4 Macc 8:23) τὸν κ. ὅλον κερδῆσαι gain the whole world Mt 16:26; Mk 8:36; Lk 9:25; 2 Cl 6:2 (cp. Procop. Soph., Ep. 137 the whole οἰκουμένη is an unimportant possession compared to ἀρετή). τὰ τερπνὰ τοῦ κ. the delightful things in the world IRo 6:1. οἱ χρώμενοι τὸν κ. ὡς μὴ καταχρώμενοι those who use the world as though they had no use of it or those who deal with the world as having made no deals with it 1 Cor 7:31a. ἔχειν τὸν βίον τοῦ κ. possess worldly goods 1J 3:17. τὰ τοῦ κόσμου the affairs of the world 1 Cor 7:33f; cp. 1J 2:15f. The latter pass. forms an easy transition to the large number of exprs. (esp. in Paul and John) in which
>>>>>>ⓑ the world, and everything that belongs to it, appears as that which is hostile to God, i.e. lost in sin, wholly at odds w. anything divine, ruined and depraved (Herm. Wr. 6, 4 [the κόσμος is τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς κακίας]; 13, 1 [ἡ τοῦ κ. ἀπάτη], in Stob. p. 428, 24 Sc.; En 48:7; TestIss 4:6; AscIs 3:25; Hdb., exc. on J 1:10; Bultmann ad loc.—cp. Sotades Maronita [III b.c.] 11 Diehl: the κόσμος is unjust and hostile to great men) IMg 5:2; IRo 2:2. ὁ κόσμος οὗτος this world (in contrast to the heavenly realm) J 8:23; 12:25, 31a; 13:1; 16:11; 18:36; 1J 4:17; 1 Cor 3:19; 5:10a; 7:31b; Hv 4, 3, 2ff; D 10:6; 2 Cl 5:1, 5; (opp. ὁ ἅγιος αἰών) B 10:11. ‘This world’ is ruled by the ἄρχων τοῦ κ. τούτου the prince of this world, the devil J 12:31b; 16:11; without τούτου 14:30. Cp. ὁ κ. ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται the whole world lies in the power of the evil one 1J 5:19; cp. 4:4; also ὁ αἰὼν τοῦ κ. τούτου Eph 2:2 (s. αἰών 4).—Christians must have nothing to do with this world of sin and separation fr. God: instead of desiring it IRo 7:1, one is to ἄσπιλον ἑαυτὸν τηρεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ κ. keep oneself untainted by the world Js 1:27. ἀποφεύγειν τὰ μιάσματα τοῦ κ. 2 Pt 2:20; cp. 1:4 (s. ἀποφεύγω 1).—Pol 5:3. ἡ φιλία τοῦ κ. ἔχθρα τ. θεοῦ ἐστιν Js 4:4a; cp. vs. 4b. When such an attitude is taken Christians are naturally hated by the world IRo 3:3; J 15:18, 19ad; 17:14a; 1J 3:13, as their Lord was hated J 7:7; 15:18; cp. 1:10c; 14:17; 16:20.—Also in Paul: God and world in opposition τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κ. and τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ θεοῦ the spirit of the world and the spirit that comes fr. God 1 Cor 2:12; σοφία τοῦ κ. and σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ 1:20f. ἡ κατὰ θεὸν λύπη and ἡ τοῦ κ. λύπη godly grief and worldly grief 2 Cor 7:10. The world is condemned by God 1 Cor 11:32; yet also the object of the divine plan of salvation 2 Cor 5:19; cp. 1 Cl 7:4; 9:4. A Christian is dead as far as this world is concerned: διʼ οὗ (i.e. Ἰ. Χρ.) ἐμοὶ κ. ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ through Christ the world has been crucified for me, and I have been (crucified) to the world Gal 6:14; cp. the question τί ὡς ζῶντες ἐν κ. δογματίζεσθε; Col 2:20b. For στοιχεῖα τοῦ κ. Gal 4:3; Col 2:8, 20a s. στοιχεῖον.—The use of κ. in this sense is even further developed in John. The κ. stands in opposition to God 1J 2:15f and hence is incapable of knowing God J 17:25; cp. 1J 4:5, and excluded fr. Christ’s intercession J 17:9; its views refuted by the Paraclete 16:8. Neither Christ himself 17:14c, 16b; 14:27, nor his own 15:19b; 17:14b, 16a; 1J 3:1 belong in any way to the ‘world’. Rather Christ has chosen them ‘out of the world’ J 15:19c, even though for the present they must still live ‘in the world’ 17:11b; cp. 13:1b; 17:15, 18b. All the trouble that they must undergo because of this, 16:33a, means nothing compared w. the victorious conviction that Christ (and the believers w. him) has overcome ‘the world’ vs. 33b; 1J 5:4f, and that it is doomed to pass away 2:17 (TestJob 33:4; Kephal. I 154, 21: the κόσμος τῆς σαρκός will pass away).
⑧ collective aspect of an entity, totality, sum total (SIG 850, 10 τὸν κόσμον τῶν ἔργων (but s. 1 above); Pr 17:6a) ὁ κ. τῆς ἀδικίας ἡ γλῶσσα καθίσταται the tongue becomes (or proves to be) the sum total of iniquity Js 3:6 (so, approx., Meinertz; FHauck.—MDibelius, Windisch and ASchlatter find mng. 7b here, whereas ACarr, Exp. 7th ser., 8, 1909, 318ff thinks of mng. 1). Χρ. τὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς κόσμου τῶν σῳζομένων σωτηρίας παθόντα Christ, who suffered or died (s. πάσχω 3aα) for the salvation of the sum total of those who are saved MPol 17:2.—FBytomski, D. genet. Entwicklung des Begriffes κόσμος in d. Hl. Schrift: Jahrb. für Philos. und spekul. Theol. 25, 1911, 180–201; 389–413 (only the OT); CSchneider, Pls u. d. Welt: Αγγελος IV ’32, 11–47; EvSchrenck, Der Kosmos-Begriff bei Joh.: Mitteilungen u. Nachrichten f. d. evang. Kirche in Russland 51, 1895, 1–29; RLöwe, Kosmos u. Aion ’35; RBultmann, D. Verständnis v. Welt u. Mensch im NT u. im Griechentum: ThBl 19, ’40, 1–14; GBornkamm, Christus u. die Welt in der urchr. Botschaft: ZTK 47, ’50, 212–26; ALesky, Kosmos ’63; RVölkl, Christ u. Welt nach dem NT ’61; GJohnston, οἰκουμένη and κ. in the NT: NTS 10, ’64, 352–60; NCassem, ibid. 19, ’72/73, 81–91; RBratcher, BT 31, ’80, 430–34.—B. 13; 440. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW.

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) (561). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
******************

>>>>I’d be happy to show you where it’s going if you'd answer this question: Was a priest expected to lock random people up for seven days or only lock them up IF the skin looked a certain shape and colour?

Jason... by your logic, if Jesus was without sins then he would hever have offered a sacrifice for his own sin, right? And yet he did... but you continue to ignore the very verse that says so, so why don't you just go to your nice church with its nice people and die loving your lies and quit pretending to have an honest discussion?:

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, ****first for his own sins*****, and then for the people’s: ****for THIS HE DID once****, when he offered up himself.

You are not stupid, Jason, and not blind. You are not illiterate. You are just IGNORANT.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jason said...

Bill,

1. Like I asked, where do you get the idea of "lost community" from? Neither word is mentioned in booklet you copy and pasted.

2. Does the question I asked scare you? Was a priest expected to lock random people up for seven days or only lock them up IF the skin looked a certain shape and colour?

WoundedEgo said...

Jason, you are welcome to the last word if you sincerely think that anyone doubts that KOSMOS refers to the "lost community":

Mt 4:8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world <2889>, and the glory of them;
Mt 5:14 Ye are the light of the world <2889>. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Mt 13:35 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world <2889>.
Mt 13:38 The field is the world <2889>; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
Mt 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world <2889>, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
Mt 18:7 Woe unto the world <2889> because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
Mt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world <2889> to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
Mt 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world <2889>:
Mt 26:13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world <2889>, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.
Mr 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world <2889>, and lose his own soul?
Mr 14:9 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world <2889>, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.
Mr 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world <2889>, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Lu 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world <2889>, and lose himself, or be cast away?
Lu 11:50 That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world <2889>, may be required of this generation;
Lu 12:30 For all these things do the nations of the world <2889> seek after: and your Father knoweth that ye have need of these things.
Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world <2889>.
Joh 1:10 He was in the world <2889>, and the world <2889> was made by him, and the world <2889> knew him not.
Joh 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world <2889>.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world <2889>, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world <2889> to condemn the world <2889>; but that the world <2889> through him might be saved.
Joh 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world <2889>, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
Joh 4:42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world <2889>.
Joh 6:14 Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world <2889>.
Joh 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world <2889>.
Joh 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world <2889>.
Joh 7:4 For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world <2889>.
Joh 7:7 The world <2889> cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.
Joh 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world <2889>: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
Joh 8:23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world <2889>; I am not of this world <2889>.
Joh 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world <2889> those things which I have heard of him.
Joh 9:5 As long as I am in the world <2889>, I am the light of the world <2889>.
Joh 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world <2889>, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world <2889>, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Joh 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world <2889>.
Joh 11:27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world <2889>.
Joh 12:19 The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? behold, the world <2889> is gone after him.
Joh 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world <2889> shall keep it unto life eternal.
Joh 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world <2889>: now shall the prince of this world <2889> be cast out.
Joh 12:46 I am come a light into the world <2889>, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
Joh 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world <2889>, but to save the world <2889>.
Joh 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world <2889> unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world <2889>, he loved them unto the end.
Joh 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world <2889> cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
Joh 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world <2889> seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
Joh 14:22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world <2889>?
Joh 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world <2889> giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
Joh 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world <2889> cometh, and hath nothing in me.
Joh 14:31 But that the world <2889> may know that I love the Father; and as the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence.
Joh 15:18 If the world <2889> hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
Joh 15:19 If ye were of the world <2889>, the world <2889> would love his own: but because ye are not of the world <2889>, but I have chosen you out of the world <2889>, therefore the world <2889> hateth you.
Joh 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world <2889> of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Joh 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world <2889> is judged.
Joh 16:20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and lament, but the world <2889> shall rejoice: and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy.
Joh 16:21 A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world <2889>.
Joh 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world <2889>: again, I leave the world <2889>, and go to the Father.
Joh 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world <2889> ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world <2889>.
Joh 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world <2889> was.
Joh 17:6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world <2889>: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word.
Joh 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world <2889>, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine.
Joh 17:11 And now I am no more in the world <2889>, but these are in the world <2889>, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world <2889>, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
Joh 17:13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world <2889>, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves.
Joh 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world <2889> hath hated them, because they are not of the world <2889>, even as I am not of the world <2889>.
Joh 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world <2889>, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil.
Joh 17:16 They are not of the world <2889>, even as I am not of the world <2889>.
Joh 17:18 As thou hast sent me into the world <2889>, even so have I also sent them into the world <2889>.
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world <2889> may believe that thou hast sent me.
Joh 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world <2889> may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Joh 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world <2889>.
Joh 17:25 O righteous Father, the world <2889> hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
Joh 18:20 Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world <2889>; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.
Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world <2889>: if my kingdom were of this world <2889>, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
Joh 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world <2889>, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
Joh 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world <2889> itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
Ac 17:24 God that made the world <2889> and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Ro 1:8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world <2889>.
Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world <2889> are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Ro 3:6 God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world <2889>?
Ro 3:19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world <2889> may become guilty before God.
Ro 4:13 For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world <2889>, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Ro 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world <2889>, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
Ro 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world <2889>: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Ro 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world <2889>, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
Ro 11:15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world <2889>, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world <2889>?
1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world <2889> by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1Co 1:27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world <2889> to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world <2889> to confound the things which are mighty;
1Co 1:28 And base things of the world <2889>, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world <2889>, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world <2889> is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1Co 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world <2889>, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
1Co 4:9 For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world <2889>, and to angels, and to men.
1Co 4:13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world <2889>, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
1Co 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world <2889>, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world <2889>.
1Co 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world <2889>? and if the world <2889> shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1Co 7:31 And they that use this world <2889>, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world <2889> passeth away.
1Co 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world <2889>, how he may please his wife.
1Co 7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world <2889>, how she may please her husband.
1Co 8:4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world <2889>, and that there is none other God but one.

And enjoy your celebrity at your Church as you IGNORE the text you falsly profess to believe:

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.

I'm not here to convince you of anything. I am just seeking honest people. And alas, I must take my search elsewhere as YOU are merely a stubborn religionist - decidely NOT an honest man...

I wish I could help you but I'm afraid I can't...

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jason said...

Jason, you are welcome to the last word if you sincerely think that anyone doubts that KOSMOS refers to the "lost community":

Last word? I’m simply wondering where you’re getting “lost community” from! It certainly isn’t in the long-winded definition you provided:

① that which serves to beautify through decoration, adornment,
② condition of orderliness, orderly arrangement, order
③ the sum total of everything here and now, the world, the (orderly) universe, in philosophical usage
④ the sum total of all beings above the level of the animals, the world,
⑤ planet earth as a place of inhabitation, the world
⑥ humanity in general, the
⑦ the system of human existence in its many aspects, the world
⑧ collective aspect of an entity, totality, sum total

I see no aspect of a lost community anywhere here. Do you? What I do see is ‘kosmos’ referring to “humanity” and the “world”. Hence, the things of the Father are compared with the things of man. Spirit vs. flesh.

I'm not here to convince you of anything. I am just seeking honest people. And alas, I must take my search elsewhere as YOU are merely a stubborn religionist - decidedly NOT an honest man...

Then set the example you would have me follow and answer the question: Was a priest expected to lock random people up for seven days or only lock them up IF the skin looked a certain shape and colour?

I wish I could help you but I'm afraid I can't...

Jesus didn’t sin. Dying to sin isn’t ceasing from sin. Paul didn’t teach reincarnation. And you’re refusing to answer my question. Thank you but I’m not the one that needs help. :)

WoundedEgo said...

From BDAG:

>>>the refuse of humanity 4:13. Of persons before conversion ἄθεοι ἐν τῷ κ. Eph 2:12.—2 Cor 1:12; 5:19; Js 2:5; 1J 2:2; 4:1

This is typical of John's and Paul's usage:

Joh 8:26 I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world <2889> those things which I have heard of him.

Joh 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world <2889> hath hated them, because they are not of the world <2889>, even as I am not of the world <2889>.

1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world <2889>.

But you seem to like to argue about words - defending new terms and rejecting plain and obvious usages:

2Ti 2:14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.

I have not addressed your question only because it is SO STUPID AND ARGUMENTATIVE...and is intended to divert attention from MY direct question to you...

What is the "this" that Jesus "did once" according to this EXPLICIT ASSERTION in the NT?:

Heb 7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for ***this*** he did once, when he offered up himself.

I asked you this repeatedly.

The only reason for locking up someone was if they had leprosy. The only reason Jesus would offer a sacrifice for his own sins (which is PRECISELY what Hebrews asserts he did) was if he had sins from which he needed to be purified.

Give it up Jason. Just admit that you are chained to dogma as surely as the combatants are in Guantanamo.

You are not free to think, not free to learn not privileged with reaching any other conclusion than that your Church will approve of. To have any other opinion is social suicide. You are a religious slut and will die one.

I have no respect for you whatsoever.

Bill Ross
http://bibleshockers.blogspot.com

Jason said...

From BDAG: >>>the refuse of humanity...Eph 2:12.—2 Cor 1:12; 5:19; Js 2:5; 1J 2:2; 4:1 This is typical of John's and Paul's usage...Joh 8:26, Joh 17:14, 1Co 11:32...But you seem to like to argue about words - defending new terms and rejecting plain and obvious usages:

I’m not arguing. I quite frankly don’t see the plain and obvious usage of “lost community” and neither do you. I see kosmos referring to humanity and so do you, especially considering the definition you included quite clearly mentions this same word. The three references above all lean towards this definition also. So, once again, the things of the Father are contrasted with the things of humanity. I’m at a loss to know why you’re debating this.

I have not addressed your question only because it is SO STUPID AND ARGUMENTATIVE...and is intended to divert attention from MY direct question to you...What is the "this" that Jesus "did once" according to this EXPLICIT ASSERTION in the NT?:

Already answered.

Heb 7:27...I asked you this repeatedly.

And I’ve answered this repeatedly.

The only reason for locking up someone was if they had leprosy. The only reason Jesus would offer a sacrifice for his own sins (which is PRECISELY what Hebrews asserts he did) was if he had sins from which he needed to be purified.

Great. So according to the Levitical law, a priest wasn’t obliged to just lock anyone up. Certain conditions had to first be met. Interesting...

Similarly, a priest wasn’t obliged to offer a sacrifice for himself first on every occasion he had to offer a sacrifice for another individual. A priest only had to offer a sacrifice if a specific condition was met: that is, he had sinned. So, once again, where there was no sin, there was no sacrifice.

Therefore, Hebrews 7:27 is simply explaining that Christ offered up one sacrifice and in doing so, wasn’t required to offer daily sacrifices as the priests had been commanded.

By taking this and looking at Leviticus 3, we can see that priests didn’t have to offer a sacrifice for their sins first any more then priests had to lock random people up. Hebrews 7:27 therefore isn’t proof that Christ sinned any more then it’s proof that every priest who ever offered a sacrifice for someone else first offered a sacrifice for themselves first. Why? Because if a priest was obligated under the law to offer a sacrifice for himself first, the qualifier “if” shouldn’t exist. Sacrificing for his own self would have been mandatory, but it wasn’t.

Likewise, the following commandments weren't mandatory either, they were conditional:

Lev 4:13 And IF the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance...

Lev 4:23 Or IF his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge...

Lev 4:27 And IF any one of the common people sin through ignorance...

Lev 4:28 Or IF his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge...

Lev 4:32 And IF he bring a lamb for a sin offering...

Lev 5:1 And IF a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness...

Lev 5:2 Or IF a soul touch any unclean thing...

Lev 5:3 Or IF he touch the uncleanness of man...

Lev 5:4 Or IF a soul swear, pronouncing with his lips to do evil...

Does this help you understand? There are plenty more examples if you'd like to see them.

Give it up Jason. Just admit that you are chained to dogma as surely as the combatants are in Guantanamo.

Absolutely. The Bible says Jesus never sinned and I am held by this.