'Mousetrails' and the dark side of the Old Testament

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Did Christ die for "OUR sins", or sin in a "general sense"?

The verses you gave in this post do not show Jesus dying for individual sins, or as payment, or as our substitute.

Who's sins did Christ die for then? Not His, He was sinless.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"Replacement Theology" is just that, a heresy.

Heresy according to your sect which you decline to name.
Can you find that heresy in the lists of heresies in Church history?
Actually it has always been Christian doctrine and is today, except for in dispensationalist sects.

Heresy according to Romans 9,10,&11. Which Paul hammers away for 3 chapters that God is not yet finished with either the Jews or Israel. No, it has NOT always been Christian doctrine, it's been Catholic doctrine, and then moved to the denominational churches because Martin Luther was very anti-Semitic in his writings.

I'll stick with what Paul says in Romans, no offense. And I don't have a denomination, I'm strictly non-denominational. Just simply blood-bought, born-again, spirit-filled Christian.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Sorry, sins were never "atoned" for in the Old Covenant. . .Christ made atonement for sin. . .

Funny, there are over 130 verses in the Old Testament with the word atone or atonement in them.
Where is the verse for you claim of "Christ atonement sin"? I get zero results with that search.
Maybe you have a verse that I can not find.

I'm not providing you with anymore verses. You refuse to read them or acknowledge when they've been presented. Then you'll post a very tiny snippet of one verse from a 200-300 word post and address one tiny aspect of it.

You don't like scripture. Did you ever read a verse that said "No man is justified by the law"? What I said is correct, Jesus Himself said no man had yet entered heaven. The dead righteous before Christ's atonement and resurrection from the dead went to Abraham's Bosom in the Earth. Christ said that those from there could see the others in torments in Sheol, and a great chasm separated the two. This is because sins before Christ were "covered" by the blood of bulls, lambs and goats. But the blood of Christ made final atonement for sin.

Check out Daniel 9 in your free time, no rush. You may hate the teaching of atonement, or that Christ died "for our sins", but that's exactly what the apostles taught, Paul, Peter, John, James. Paul was the champion of "Sound Doctrine", and also said if anyone teach something contrary to their gospel "let them be accursed." Believe whatever you want, I'll stick with Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews. My foundation is sola scriptura as the final authority, not the opinions of random dudes on the internet.


"For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures". ~ I Corinthians 15:3-4

reply to post by jmdewey60

That is in the KJV, in the newer translations 1:5 says, released, instead of washed.

I don't doubt that. The Alexandrian Codices were written by men that rejected the blood atonement of Christ, it's not only expurgated in that verse but many more throughout the NT. You can have you Roman Catholic Mss. and Westcott and Hort texts. These men were unbelievers.

Have you been to Jesus for the cleansing power?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?

Not according to the new Bible Per-Versions!

Not according to the New International Version (NIV), New American Standard Version (NASV), New Living Bible, New Revised Standard Versions (NRSV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), The Living Bible (TLB), Today’s English Version, Contemporary English Version (CEV), International Standard Version: (ISV) and the other Per-Versions!

Are You Washed In the Blood?

". . .ye have perverted the words of the living God. . ." Jeremiah 23:36

The following table lists 300 verses that have been changed in the seven most popular versions....

Bible Version Comparison


Modern versions attack the deity of Jesus Christ, His blood atonement, the virgin birth and the bodily resurrection from the dead.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Did Christ die for "OUR sins", or sin in a "general sense"?

The verses you gave in this post do not show Jesus dying for individual sins, or as payment, or as our substitute.

Who's sins did Christ die for then? Not His, He was sinless.

This is the main thing right here, that I was trying to get at. Your claim of a personal saviour who dies on your behalf to be your personal substitute, to pay for your personal sins.
Instead of backing up your claim you just sidestep it over and over.
If you can't back it up, could you just admit that a personal Jesus who dies in your place to pay for your sins, is merely a theory, just like your other theory about Christ's righteousness that is substituted for your not so righteous life, in judgement?
I already said what my "theory " is, which is that the death of Jesus was somehow instrumental and necessary to inaugurate and to put into affect the New Covenant whereby God guides us directly through the Holy Spirit, into a life free from sin.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"Replacement Theology" is just that, a heresy.

Heresy according to your sect which you decline to name.
Can you find that heresy in the lists of heresies in Church history?
Actually it has always been Christian doctrine and is today, except for in dispensationalist sects.

Heresy according to Romans 9,10,&11. Which Paul hammers away for 3 chapters that God is not yet finished with either the Jews or Israel. No, it has NOT always been Christian doctrine, it's been Catholic doctrine, and then moved to the denominational churches because Martin Luther was very anti-Semitic in his writings.

I'll stick with what Paul says in Romans, no offense. And I don't have a denomination, I'm strictly non-denominational. Just simply blood-bought, born-again, spirit-filled Christian.

Right, just what I said, which is that it is heresy according to you. According to your interpretation of the scripture. What I am asking is where in anyone else's opinion, other than from a dispensationalist viewpoint, is replacement "theory" a heresy and not the fundamental principle of Christian doctrine?

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Did Christ die for "OUR sins", or sin in a "general sense"?

The verses you gave in this post do not show Jesus dying for individual sins, or as payment, or as our substitute.

Who's sins did Christ die for then? Not His, He was sinless.

This is the main thing right here, that I was trying to get at. Your claim of a personal saviour who dies on your behalf to be your personal substitute, to pay for your personal sins.
Instead of backing up your claim you just sidestep it over and over.

Are you kidding me? How many MORE verses do I need to present which say Christ died for "our sins"?

If you can't back it up, could you just admit that a personal Jesus who dies in your place to pay for your sins, is merely a theory, just like your other theory about Christ's righteousness that is substituted for your not so righteous life, in judgement?

If we have to be righteous on our own efforts then none of us will ever reach heaven, we're imperfect sinners.

I already said what my "theory " is, which is that the death of Jesus was somehow instrumental and necessary to inaugurate and to put into affect the New Covenant whereby God guides us directly through the Holy Spirit, into a life free from sin.

You can claim you're free from sin, I'm not going to deceive myself. (1 John 1:8)

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

"Replacement Theology" is just that, a heresy.

Heresy according to your sect which you decline to name.
Can you find that heresy in the lists of heresies in Church history?
Actually it has always been Christian doctrine and is today, except for in dispensationalist sects.

Heresy according to Romans 9,10,&11. Which Paul hammers away for 3 chapters that God is not yet finished with either the Jews or Israel. No, it has NOT always been Christian doctrine, it's been Catholic doctrine, and then moved to the denominational churches because Martin Luther was very anti-Semitic in his writings.

I'll stick with what Paul says in Romans, no offense. And I don't have a denomination, I'm strictly non-denominational. Just simply blood-bought, born-again, spirit-filled Christian.

Right, just what I said, which is that it is heresy according to you. According to your interpretation of the scripture. What I am asking is where in anyone else's opinion, other than from a dispensationalist viewpoint, is replacement "theory" a heresy and not the fundamental principle of Christian doctrine?

Me? No, I didn't write Romans 9,10,&11. I wasn't even alive in the first century. You can ignore entire chapters of the Bible but that's at your own peril. Romans 9 deals with Israel past, Romans 10 dealt with Israel at the present time Paul wrote it, and Romans 11 dealt with Israel future.


More verses you'll throw in the trash heap of rejection:

"I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin." Romans 11:1

"So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!" Romans 11:11-12

"For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" Romans 11:15

"Lest you be wise in your own sight, I want you to understand this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,

“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
“and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”

As regards the gospel, they are enemies of God for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable." Romans 11:25-29




But yeah, lol, it's just "my theory".

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Did you ever read a verse that said "No man is justified by the law"?

answer: Yes.
Paul was in the thick of the battle over the question of Christian converts having to be circumcised.
How about you giving me a verse that says a man shall not be justified by being righteous?

Here's one that says what seems to be the opposite,
Romans 2:6 and 13, He will reward each one according to his works: eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works seek glory and honor and immortality, but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness.
For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous before God, but those who do the law will be declared righteous.

the teaching of atonement, or that Christ died "for our sins", but that's exactly what the apostles taught, Paul, Peter, John, James.

You are taking two different doctrines and combining them together to create a false concept with no scriptural backing.

My foundation is sola scriptura as the final authority, not the opinions of random dudes on the internet.

Right, it is something you are always in a hurry to cry out for, when it is someone else, but when it comes to your pet theories, it seems the rules do not apply.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

More verses you'll throw in the trash heap of rejection:

In Romans 11:12, where the KJV says "full inclusion", the Greek just says "fullness". Paul goes on to say about this hypothetical situation he just presented, "Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Seeing that I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry, if somehow I could provoke my people to jealousy and save some of them. For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?"
He is saying that his work would be so much more the greater if it somehow provoked the Jews into becoming Christians. From our vantage point of history, we understand that he wished in vain.

reply to post by jmdewey60


JM, Paul wasn't merely talking about circumcision. Heck, circumcision was commanded some 400 years before the law was given!

Read Galatians chapters 2 & 3.

reply to post by jmdewey60


The "fullness of the Gentiles" is complete at the rapture. Then the focus will again be on Israel and the Jews. The church isn't mentioned on Earth after chapter 4:1. The entire purpose of the Tribulation is to drive Israel to accept her Messiah. There is no hypothetical in Romans 11, Paul clearly teaches God is not yet finished with Israel or the Jews.

Faith & Works

Works righteousness VS Gift righteousness (Galatians chapter 3)

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

JM, Paul wasn't merely talking about circumcision. Heck, circumcision was commanded some 400 years before the law was given!

Read Galatians chapters 2 & 3.

So there is nothing int the law concerning circumcision?
Could you possibly be making that claim?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

The "fullness of the Gentiles" is complete at the rapture. Then the focus will again be on Israel and the Jews. The church isn't mentioned on Earth after chapter 4:1. The entire purpose of the Tribulation is to drive Israel to accept her Messiah. There is no hypothetical in Romans 11, Paul clearly teaches God is not yet finished with Israel or the Jews.

Chapter 4 of what?
Where do you get all this from?
You know, I have read the Bible?
I don't remember reading anything like that
And so, what if it has some really obscure phrase in there like that?
You are going to throw out all doctrine in order to accept one based on something so vague?

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

JM, Paul wasn't merely talking about circumcision. Heck, circumcision was commanded some 400 years before the law was given!

Read Galatians chapters 2 & 3.

So there is nothing int the law concerning circumcision?
Could you possibly be making that claim?

Paul made the claim that Abraham was justified by faith before the law, and 18 years of so before he circumcised himself. You said Paul is "only" talking about circumcision in Galatians. That's not true at all, Paul is writing to the Galatians about returning to the law after receiving the Spirit, beginning the faith and trying to complete it with the flesh (Galatians 3:2-3).

Galatians 3:2-3 "Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?"

Galatians 2:16 "yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified."


Following the law doesn't make a person righteous (Galatians 2:21), it places them under "a curse" (Galatians 3:10) Paul says:


Galatians 2:21 "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose."

Galatians 3:10 "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”


Paul goes on to say that Christ redeemed us from the "curse" of the law:


Galatians 3:13 "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—


Paul calls the Galatians who want to turn to the law for righteousness "foolish" and "bewitched".


Galatians 3:1 "O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified."


Paul again says righteousness doesn't come by the law, and the "promise" is given to all who believe by faith, and not works of the law:

Galatians 3:21-22 "Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe."


Now Paul closes with this beautiful conclusion, that the law held people "captive" until Christ came and redeemed those under the law's clutches. And that we are justified by faith, and now that the law of faith has come we are no longer under the law of works/flesh.


Galatians 3:23-29 "Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise."


We no longer follow by the letter of the law JM, we now follow by the leading and conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Originally posted by jmdewey60

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

The "fullness of the Gentiles" is complete at the rapture. Then the focus will again be on Israel and the Jews. The church isn't mentioned on Earth after chapter 4:1. The entire purpose of the Tribulation is to drive Israel to accept her Messiah. There is no hypothetical in Romans 11, Paul clearly teaches God is not yet finished with Israel or the Jews.

Chapter 4 of what?
Where do you get all this from?
You know, I have read the Bible?
I don't remember reading anything like that
And so, what if it has some really obscure phrase in there like that?
You are going to throw out all doctrine in order to accept one based on something so vague?

Sorry, Revelation 4:1. The church is not mentioned on Earth after 4:1, the church, signified by the candlesticks, is in the throne room of heaven to witness the opening of the 7 seals by the Lord Jesus Christ in chapter 4. The entire purpose if the Tribulation is to drive the Jews to finally accept Jesus as their Messiah.

In Hosea the Lord declares that He will "return" to His place until His people admit their error and seek Him desperately. This will happen during the Tribulation.

Hosea 5:15 "I will go and return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face: in their affliction they will seek me early (or earnestly)."


But the point being, Paul declares in Romans chapter 11 that God is not finished with Israel or the Jews.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


How do you know "God" wasn't finished with the Jews 1000 years ago, or sometime before or after that mark?

How do you know this is something thats "yet to come"?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

We no longer follow by the letter of the law JM, we now follow by the leading and conviction of the Holy Spirit.

No kidding, that's what I have been saying.
That is not the issue.
You really lost track of what the argument is.
You were saying a man is not justified by keeping the law.
I am saying when Paul says Law, he means the Hebrew Law, as in Moses.
The place where we veer off from each other is that you say we can not be righteous.
There is no righteousness from keeping the Law because that is the Old Covenant.
There is a righteousness by obeying the New Covenant.
Sin sacrifice offerings for atonement is the Old Covenant.
Jesus did not sacrifice himself in an Old Covenant sort of way.
Jesus did sacrifice himself to bring into affect the New Covenant.
But it was not a blood sacrifice to pay for the sins of the Old Covenant.
Jesus saved us from the charges against us under the Old Covenant by doing away with the Old Covenant and one of the ways that he did it was by having a sinless life with was the satisfaction of the requirement of the Old Covenant. Jesus did not satisfy the Old Covenant by suffering the penalty of the Law.
Jesus took the sins away from us, meaning all the guilt, in the same manner as David said of God, to bear his sins, and in the manner of the priests of the Old Covenant tabernacle system, to take the sins away of the people in order to destroy the guilt and potential punishment. Those sins he bore did not have the power to latch onto Jesus and cause him to be destroyed, just as God was able to bear David's sins without harm to himself, just the burdening which he could hold up under for some amount of time, long enough to when there was the way made to permanently have those things destroyed.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

How do you know "God" wasn't finished with the Jews 1000 years ago, or sometime before or after that mark?

How do you know this is something thats "yet to come"?

Because the Jews have not yet repented of their sin of rejecting their Messiah. That will happen after the fullness of the Gentiles (rapture of the church), during the Tribulation. In the Jews affliction they will seek Jesus earnestly.

At least that's the order of events Paul lays out.