Freethought & Rationalism Archive

schriverja · 04-22-2010, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

<snipped>

A person who places his trust in Jesus would start doing things the way Jesus said and stop relying on sinful activities in his life. Thus, we would observe a significant decline in his participation in, and reliance on, sin.

What the heck is reliance on sin??

maddog · 04-22-2010, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

So are you implying that you longer sin?

Not at all. The people who God has redeemed have their sins forgiven but can hardly be said to no longer sin. To avoid sin requires that one be omnipotent and omniscient.

...

A person who places his trust in Jesus would start doing things the way Jesus said and stop relying on sinful activities in his life. Thus, we would observe a significant decline in his participation in, and reliance on, sin.

Precisely what is never observed in practice. Christians are not observably better behaved than non-Christians.

#2145

manwithdream · 04-22-2010, 12:45 PM

I looked up the quote. In Hebrews 9:22, it says something like according to the law, you had to have blood for the forgiveness of sins. If the law was still in effect while J was alive, then there had to be blood according to the writer of Hebrews. I am just seeing if the forgiving of the paralyzed man contradicts the quote in Hebrews.

aa5874 · 04-22-2010, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manwithdream

I looked up the quote. In Hebrews 9:22, it says something like according to the law, you had to have blood for the forgiveness of sins. If the law was still in effect while J was alive, then there had to be blood according to the writer of Hebrews. I am just seeing if the forgiving of the paralyzed man contradicts the quote in Hebrews.

It would appear to me that the crucifixion and death of Jesus in the Synoptics did NOT signify salvation but rather desolation and destruction.

The Synoptic Jesus "knew" that the Jews would have caused him to be crucified and it was for that reason he could "predict" the desolation of the Jews and the destruction of the Jewish Temple.

It must be noted that the Johanine Jesus did not predict the desolation and destruction of the Jews and the Jewish Temple nor did he teach that the Sanhedrin would see him in his generation in the second coming, but taught about salvation of all the world.

Forgiveness of sin through the sacrifice of Jesus is a late invention in the Gospels and all Epistles.

And around the 2nd century there were Christians who abhorred human sacrifice to God.

Human sacrifice was abominable to Christians and considered to be HOMICIDE by Octavius.

This is "Octavius" 30 by Minucius Felix.

Quote:

To us it is not lawful either to see or to hear of homicide; and so much do we shrink from human blood, that we do not use the blood even of eatable animals in our food.

See www.newadvent.org

rhutchin · 04-22-2010, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schriverja

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

<snipped>

A person who places his trust in Jesus would start doing things the way Jesus said and stop relying on sinful activities in his life. Thus, we would observe a significant decline in his participation in, and reliance on, sin.

What the heck is reliance on sin??

People basically sin in order to get what they want.

rhutchin · 04-22-2010, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maddog

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Not at all. The people who God has redeemed have their sins forgiven but can hardly be said to no longer sin. To avoid sin requires that one be omnipotent and omniscient.

...

A person who places his trust in Jesus would start doing things the way Jesus said and stop relying on sinful activities in his life. Thus, we would observe a significant decline in his participation in, and reliance on, sin.

Precisely what is never observed in practice. Christians are not observably better behaved than non-Christians.

This calls for a study.

rhutchin · 04-22-2010, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manwithdream

I looked up the quote. In Hebrews 9:22, it says something like according to the law, you had to have blood for the forgiveness of sins. If the law was still in effect while J was alive, then there had to be blood according to the writer of Hebrews. I am just seeing if the forgiving of the paralyzed man contradicts the quote in Hebrews.

Revelation 13:8 refers to "...the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Effectively, Christ was slain before God even established the world so thereby Christ is able to grant forgiveness of sins if the shedding of blood is required.

Certainly, the shedding of blood is required for a person to approach God and seek forgiveness. Was that the case in Mark 2? The four men plus the man with palsy, who certainly had a mind and was not carried to Jesus without understanding what was happening, go to Jesus. It says that Jesus saw their faith. Again, there is no reason to exclude the man with palsy from this. His faith was equally displayed as was his four helpers. Perhaps, it was he who urged them on and to dig through the roof. So, what is this faith that is displayed? Is it faith in some man to heal or is it faith that this man was the promised Messiah and the man with palsy sought more than just healing. Did he also seek to be forgiven of his sin(s)? We don't know except that Jesus responds to his faith by forgiving the man's sins. Jesus does not seem concerned about healing the man but does it more in response to the scribes who surely understood that only God could forgive sins and only God could heal the man.

Th question remains as to whether Jesus could forgive the sins of the man without the man seeking forgiveness. My sense is that He could. If the shedding of blood were required, then this was satisfied as he was slain before the foundation of the world.

Petergdi · 04-22-2010, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by manwithdream

I looked up the quote. In Hebrews 9:22, it says something like according to the law, you had to have blood for the forgiveness of sins. If the law was still in effect while J was alive, then there had to be blood according to the writer of Hebrews. I am just seeing if the forgiving of the paralyzed man contradicts the quote in Hebrews.

You seem to be under the strange impression that you can take any portion of scripture, decide what it means, and interpret it as a universal proposition. While Christians do sometimes do this sort of thing, and I have myself at times, it isn't how Christians normally believe interpreting scripture should be done - not even conservative evangelicals.

For instance if you look in:

Guthrie, Donald. Hebrews (or via: amazon.co.uk) - Tyndale New Testament Commentaries Eerdmans/IVP. 1983

On page 194-195 where this verse is discussed, the commentary points out that Leviticus 5:11 allows that extremely poor people who could not afford two turtledoves or two pigeons could commit one-tenth of an ephah of choice flour as a sin-offering.

I think that's a better "Errancy" style "contradiction" than yours, and yet it is pointed out in an evangelical bible commentary. The actual doctrine of biblical inerrancy (As it appears in the Chicago Statement) allows for this sort of thing quite easily. (I am not personally an inerrantist, mostly because I think the doctrine is needlessly complicated and does not mean what outsiders assume it means.)

The above mentioned commentary appears to be a rather good one which avoids the mistake of reading much Platonism into Hebrews. If you want to underatand what Hebrews is really doing, I think it might be a good place to start.

Peter.

storytime · 04-22-2010, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by manwithdream

I think Mark 2 says that J forgave a paralyzed man's sins, but it does not say there was any blood atonement for the sin. I thought that Christianity says that forgiveness requires blood atonement. How do they explain this story?

For context, we read:

5 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee.
6 But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts,
7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?

We see that the scribes do not think as you might have advised them and complain that no blood has been shed. Instead they think to themselves, "who can forgive sins but God only?" Thus, they clearly grasp the import of what Jesus is doing. However, the point to be made is that God can forgive the sins of anyone He chooses and can do so without the shedding of blood or any other requirement.

What happens if God does not choose to forgive your sins? Do you have any recourse?

Under the OT, God made a covenant with Israel that allowed a person to seek forgiveness for his sins by taking an animal to the priests who would then present that animal to God and sacrifice that animal. God then accepted the death of the animal in payment for the person's sins rather than requiring that the person personally pay for those sins through his death.

In the NT, God made a new covenant with people and established that covenant through Christ's death on the cross. Under this covenant, God stands willing to redeem (which includes the forgiveness of sin) all those who come to Christ in faith.

But..it was a lie, for God did not change his laws or the covenant made with his people Israel. Jacob-Israel was his only son. Even Esau[Edomites] was excluded. Gentiles were excluded, for as it is written, "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." Circumcision was not made void but required protocol for any person desiring to make himself known as equal to the Jew and in the house of Israel. Jesus is not shown to have extended the covenant given only to Jacob-Israel the only son, to Gentiles who were not sons.

If I'm not mistaken, Gentiles were prohibited from making sacrifices to the Hebrew god simply because they were not recognized as children of the Hebrew god. God would consider it an abomination, as an unclean offering and unacceptable. A Jewish person even suggesting such a thing would probably have been killed on the spot for speaking where God had not spoken.

storytime · 04-22-2010, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petergdi

...One thing that orthodoxy seems fairly clear on is that the value of the old sacrifices was based on them looking forward to Christ and not in any efficacy they had in themselves....

The OT sacrifices could only atone for the sins that a person had committed in the past. Those sacrifices could not atone for any future sins the person committed. In addition, those sacrifices did not change the character of the person. The person was born a sinner and this is the reason he sinned. The OT sacrifice could atone for the sine already committed but the person remained a sinner and would go out and sin again necessitating another sacrifice and that cycle would be repeated until the person died.

In looking forward to Christ, a person looked for the day in which he would be redeemed from being a sinner.

It was said that Jesus died once for sinners. This would be their past sins. As a sacrifice once for all, he could not keep dying over and over again for future sins. That just doesn't make sense. To advise people to "go and sin no more" makes sense, because there is no more sacrifice available.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-22-2010, 12:45 PM	#13
manwithdream Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: united states Posts: 156	I looked up the quote. In Hebrews 9:22, it says something like according to the law, you had to have blood for the forgiveness of sins. If the law was still in effect while J was alive, then there had to be blood according to the writer of Hebrews. I am just seeing if the forgiving of the paralyzed man contradicts the quote in Hebrews.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.