Jesus allowed me to be this new person. I’m a totally different person- my friends and family see it and comment on it all the time. For His work in me I give Him my life.
Thank you, Dr. Brant Pitre. This was so incredibly helpful for me. When I entered Religious Life, I remember reading the line "He who knew no sin was made sin for us" in the Psalm Prayers during the Liturgy of the Hours. Without knowing much about Theology, I asked, "Who wrote this? Was it one of the Vatican II Bishops?" When someone told me that it came from Paul's own writings, I thought, "Well, he must have been wrong about a few things." As soon as I saw the title to this video, it piqued my interest. Before hearing your conclusion, I thought that the second explanation made more sense (though I see how you draw some conclusions from the first ... St. John Chrysostom's quote put a lot into context for me). Like much of your work, the linguistic connections (found in Leviticus 4) certainly clarify some of the discrepancies that some may miss out on from a purely anglicized lens. I will have to remember to relay a lot of this to others as I discover the answers to these deep questions in my own prayer life. Grateful to know that even trained Theologians have wrestled with this! Your work continues to inspire and inform so many and is a great gift to the Church. Thank you so much and God Bless!
You have a great gift to give us a very special understanding Clearly to know God better. You have my prayers.we use your writings for our continued formation.we love it.thank God.
Absolutely brilliant insights. So now to follow this up appropriately, I'm going to play the song Alelulia!!!! 😁Thank you, Dr. Pitre, and may God bless you and yours ☮🛐✝️😊
Great explanation! I've been wrestling with this verse since I revert to the Catholic faith. I use to believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. The problem with substitution theory is it is in contradiction with the Pauline theology of sharing/participation "in Christ"/"with Christ". The second explanation is more plausible since sacrifice originally means "to make holy" (sacra and facere). Christ took upon himself our human nature and offered Himself (including the human nature) as a sacrifice i.e. he made holy our human nature and offered it back to God. Jesus does it alone himself, but through the sacrament of Baptism, we share in his divine nature and offer our human nature as a sacrifice (again, make holy) in Christ, with Christ to the Father. Gal. 2:20 - I am crucified with Christ Romans 12:2 - Offer your bodies (plural, our bodies) as a living sacrifice (singular, the one sacrifice of Jesus). Gal. 2:20 and Romans 12:2 are only possible through sharing/participation. Substitution is a very very big contradiction in this Pauline theology.
@@justsomevids4541 Penal Substutionary Atonement (PSA), is Nestorian. Let me explain, in true Christianity God the Son assumes a human nature and cecomes human, Jesus Christ. In Nestorianism God the Son shares space with a human person named Jesus who is the one hungering,, thirsting and weeping. This might seem small but think of it, in Christianity the Son is the subject of all the events of the Gospel, hunger, thirst, weeping and so on. In Nestorianism God the Son is sharing space with a human named Jesus. In Christianity God made flesh goes to the cross and offers Himself in sacrifice as a sin offering and then Jesus' human soul enters the realm of the dead, defeats the powers of evil, Satan, death and so on. Then in His Resurrection all humans will rise with Him and the world will be restored. In PSA the Trinity cannot be broken so a Nestorian Jesus who is a human separated from the Son is damned while the Son is unaffected, while we get the credit for the perfect human Jesus' life. No need for a Resurrection here, you are covered and that is all that matters because you subscribe to the right theology. This is Gnosticism. Also might seem to make sense on the surface but no mere human can save you. Only God made flesh can save you. Nestorianism then is all wet and with it PSA.
I myself am wrestling how to have a proper conversation with Protestants on how the Catholic view on atonement is different from Penal Substitution. As a new convert to Catholicism, I too am infested with protestant doctrines that sometimes I wonder how to draw the line. For instance how can a Catholic admit that there’s some kind of substitution that is different from the kind of substitution that Penal Substitution entails? Is it only the “participatory” element? It seems too thin a line to make a big deal out of it. I know Catholics can’t say that Jesus suffered the full wrath of God against sin at the cross. But if that’s true then in what sense then is Christ’s sacrifice a substitution? So as of now, I am just emphasizing that Jesus became a Sin Offering, not in a substitutionary sense but as a pleasing aroma to the Father.
@@raeldc Jesus did take our punishment in a manner of speaking, the Son in becoming human experiences hunger, thirst and so on in His earthly life and in His final hours flogging, crucifixion and death. This was something that prior to the Incarnation He did not experience. (Quick note by dying the Son, Jesus Christ, did not cease to exist rather His body and soul were seperated). Like I said in a sense He is taking our punishment as prior to the Fall these things did not exist. Of course this is not the same as saying that God damned a Nestorian Jesus on the cross.
@@raeldc If you study the Penal Substitutionary Atonement seriously you'll find out that it is a theory anchored in an eisegetical interpretation of the passages usually used by Protestants. When reading the Bible they have these eyeglasses of the courtroom analogy wherein God the Father is the judge, the sinner is the accused on trial, and Jesus is the lawyer. Since the sinner is guilty and worthy of punishment, Jesus made an exchange with the sinner. He was the one punished by the Father (on the cross) in place of the sinner. Now, wearing those eyeglasses all the verses that say "Jesus died FOR US","Jesus died because of us", "Jesus bore our sins" will be read as "Jesus died IN OUR PLACE" when in fact you can't see in the verse the phrase "IN OUR PLACE". For Protestants "FOR US" means "IN OUR PLACE". But that's not true.
"FOR US" means Jesus did it all by himself. But we are called to share in his suffering, share in his death, and share in His resurrection so that we can share in his divine life and have a newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4).
So what's happening here is eisegesis, they are putting the meaning that they want in the verses because they read it the way they want to. PSA is the devolution of Anselms Theory of Satisfaction. Remember that Anselm's approach was philosophical. He was using reason and analogy that were well known during his time to answer the objections of the pagans to the Christian faith. Here is a quotation from the Cur Deus Homo... "The first contains the objections of infidels, who despise the Christian faith because they deem it contrary to REASON; and also the reply of believers…in the second book, likewise, as if nothing were known of Christ, it is moreover shown by PLAIN REASON..." When the Reformers "developed" their PSA doctrine they use Anselm's approach - the use of analogy - and anchored their whole soteriology in a mere analogy. By exposing that PSA was anchored in an eisegetical interpretation of the Scripture the whole Protestant soteriology would crumble down.
While entering the church and reading through the Old Testament after reading the gospels, the idea of Jesus being a sin offering jumped out at me pretty immediately as well as the deep connection to the passover. I also believe another valid interpretation of this verse from Paul is that simply death came from sin and in some way Paul is telling us Jesus died/became death so that through this miracle of humility, we have a bridge in Jesus to everlasting life. I think that the cross was, and Jesus's whole earthly life and resurrection, was the convergence of many themes in the old testmant into a single event, meaning that there aren't singular types or interpretations to cling to, but only the fullness of God's glory to take in, contemplate, and abide with by the guidance of our holy church.
I thinkkkkk I’ve heard it worded, regarding the baptism of Christ. That he borrow our sin and was plunged into the water. Micah He will turn again; He will have compassion upon us; He will subdue our iniquities. And Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.
I always interpreted it as the second explanation because of the continuing theme of sacrifice in the Old Testament- Abraham/ Isaac- what greater sacrifice than your innocent child. Also the strict laws on sacrifice as an appeasement to God throughout the OT. It would also explain the heartbreaking question of Jesus shortly before he died" my God why have you forsaken me"? There could be no greater sacrifice for humanity's continuing sinfulness despite sacrifice than God to make Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice once and for all for humanity.
And why should we despair that God should speak in men, Who spoke in the thorn bush? [ Exodus 3:4 ] God did not despise the bush, and would He might give light also to my thorns. - St. Ambrose
this was helpful; thank you! sometimes, though, the passage or explanation seem closer to penal substitution vs vicarious satisfaction. is there a way to tighten my understanding so as not to hear the former?
Yes, Jesus was the substitutionary sacrifice of atonement, the Lamb of God, prefigured by the Passover Lamb as well as all the other sacrifices. Notice, those sacrifices were not about punishing the victim, but were the offering of something of value to the one offering it. Whereas those old sacrifices of animals were of finite value and only covered sins, the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God (Jesus, the Divine Person) is infinite in value and utterly obliterates all traces of Sin (when applied to the individual), truly purifying those who offer it in union with Jesus (ie, those who believe, and call on His Name, etc).
No, not a scapegoat, that would mean He was punished in our place. But that's not accurate. Instead, He was the sacrificial Lamb, a sacrifice of atonement, not a substitute for punishment. That idea (Penal Substitution) is the Lutheran/Calvinist view, found nowhere in Christian doctrinal history before the 16th century.
Dr. Brant Pitre... if I may offer this thought on 2 Cor 5:21. ... "made him to be sin" ... meaning only one without sin can take away the sin of the world or "make atonement for our sin." It would not be possible for "him to be sin" or be the "new Adam" if he was already with sin.
💖 THANK YOU! That phrase that Christ became sin always bothered me and couldn't find an explanation. You say go to the early Church to get answers. Where is a good source for those plus a place where you can search for key words? THANK YOU!
Could this explain the curse of Adam that, although without any type of sin, even Jesus subjected himself to as in the old world and therefore creating the new in the resurrection? As in Paul Explaination in Romans 5?
Fun fact, in the Talmud when the Rabbi's are discussing the death of a Moshiach in Zechariah12:10, there is a debate because some of them interpreted Zechariah12:10 as being about the slaying of the evil inclination, which is basically the Jewish equivalent to original sin. [Sukkah52a] _"The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that the lament is for Messiah ben Yosef who was killed, this would be the meaning of that which is written in that context: “And they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son” (Zechariah __12:10__). However, according to the one who said that the eulogy is for the evil inclination that was killed, does one need to conduct a eulogy for this? On the contrary, one should conduct a celebration. Why, then, did they cry? The Gemara answers: This can be understood as Rabbi Yehuda taught: In the future, at the end of days, God will bring the evil inclination and slaughter it in the presence of the righteous and in the presence of the wicked."_ [Sukkah52a] Amazing!, you can see how this particular puzzle was solved for Paul with the crucifixion of Christ, the Moshiach _became sin_ so that we might be reconciled to God.(2Corinthians5:21) Moreover they go on the paraphrase Paul again concerning the slaying of the Moshiach/evil inclination; [Sukkah52a] _"For the righteous the evil inclination appears to them as a high mountain, and for the wicked it appears to them as a mere strand of hair. These weep and those weep. The righteous weep and say: How were we able to overcome so high a mountain? And the wicked weep and say: How were we unable to overcome this strand of hair?"_ Compare with; 1Corinthians1:18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
If sin was not bad, there would have not been blood shed from Christ. If God's mercy was not intended, there would not have been a crucifixion. In dying He restored our death, in rising He restored our life. Christ did not become sin as He is incapable of sin. However, He conquered the effects of sin which is suffering and death.
”I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:“ 2 Samuel 7:14 KJV. *If **_he_** commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men.* but Jesus had committed no sin, how was he then chastened? Because as a substitution for sin, insomuch as the Mosaic Law required the slaughter of animals to take the place of sin, yet the animal had committed no sin but sheds its blood, so too does Christ suffer the punishment of sin in the chastening of men, as this is the only way sacrifice can be fulfilled. It is fundamentally to place transgression of one onto another so as to not receive the punishment oneself. Another verse relevant here is Galatians 3:13 ”Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:“
Hi my comment might be off topic, but I have a question question and doesnt seem to find the answer. Did Catholic church removed a verse in the 10 commandments?
Hi Ermac. No the RC church did NOT ☺️. Some believe the church removed the commandment on graven images so that we could make them. Two commandments are different. Google Protestant versus Catholic ten commandments but read Catholic writers or " Did the Catholic Church Change the Ten Commandments? By Tim Staples". I can't explain due to space, but.. Read the Catholic explanation, It's been done in Light and Truth. Hope this helps. May God bless you and open all our spiritual eyes.Come Holy Spirit, Fill our hearts, Amen🙏☺️
No. Some anti-Catholics came up with that charge simply because they chose to number the commandments differently. I think they make separate commandments out of two adjacent clauses while the Church traditionally keeps them together. There are no numbers in the original text, so someone has to interpret where exactly each one starts and ends.
"Sin offerings function as substitutionary sacrifices for sin." (At the 15:49 mark) But sin offerings were "most holy", and were to be eaten only by the holy priests in a holy place. This shows that they were not considered to be tainted, condemned or sinful in any way. Wouldn't such animals be tainted if they were killed as substitutes for condemned sinners? "These are the regulations for the sin offering: The sin offering is to be slaughtered before the Lord in the place the burnt offering is slaughtered; it is most holy. The priest who offers it shall eat it; it is to be eaten in the sanctuary area, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting. Whatever touches any of the flesh will become holy, and if any of the blood is spattered on a garment, you must wash it in the sanctuary area. The clay pot the meat is cooked in must be broken; but if it is cooked in a bronze pot, the pot is to be scoured and rinsed with water. Any male in a priest’s family may eat it; it is most holy." (Leviticus 6:24-29 NIV)
Highlights how important Tradition is - in this case the Early Church Fathers rather than formal Council. By throwing away Tradition, Protestantism has lost all these teachings (including the understanding of the old languages). I had, for example, stumbled on all sorts of "modern" takes on this, and they were a bit wild.
If you study the Penal Substitutionary Atonement seriously you'll find out that it is a theory anchored in an eisegetical interpretation of the passages usually used by Protestants. When reading the Bible they have these eyeglasses of the courtroom analogy wherein God the Father is the judge, the sinner is the accused on trial, and Jesus is the lawyer. Since the sinner is guilty and worthy of punishment, Jesus made an exchange with the sinner. He was the one punished by the Father (on the cross) in place of the sinner. Now, wearing those eyeglasses all the verses that say "Jesus died FOR US","Jesus died BECAUSE OF US", "Jesus bore our sins" will be read as "Jesus died IN OUR PLACE" when in fact you can't see in the verse the phrase "IN OUR PLACE". For Protestants "FOR US"/"BECAUSE OF US" means "IN OUR PLACE". But that's not true.
"FOR US" means Jesus did it all by himself. But we are called to share in his suffering, share in his death, and share in His resurrection so that we can share in his divine life and have a newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4).
So what's happening here is eisegesis, they are putting the meaning that they want in the verses because they read it the way they want to. PSA is the devolution of Anselms Theory of Satisfaction. Remember that Anselm's approach was philosophical. He was using reason and analogy that were well known during his time to answer the objections of the pagans to the Christian faith. Here is a quotation from the Cur Deus Homo... "The first contains the objections of infidels, who despise the Christian faith because they deem it contrary to REASON; and also the reply of believers…in the second book, likewise, as if nothing were known of Christ, it is moreover shown by PLAIN REASONING..." When the Reformers "developed" their PSA doctrine they use Anselm's approach - the use of analogy - and anchored their whole soteriology in a mere analogy. By exposing that PSA was anchored in an eisegetical interpretation of the Scripture the whole Protestant soteriology would crumble down.
God in the beginning said the wages of sin is death! no matter how good u r if u sin god can not accept u into his kingdom! he said if u break one command is like u broke them all! he also said the sin will be forgiven by blood! this explains to u why god had to come down as the lord jesus christ in human flesh and had to die for us all! his blood is righteous so it makes sense to wash our blood with righteous blood in order to wash it completely and restore our filthy blood with clean blood! thats why some people ask me why god had to do that, he could have just said all will be forgiven but that will contradict what he said before! also i hear people saying to me he could have used a regular human body or an animal to shed their blood instead of god's blood but again u can not wash and restore filthy blood by another filthy blood! it is like washing dirt with dirty water u can not get a good solution in the end or it is like how christ described it in the bible saying is it right to mix good wine with cheap wine?? or is it right to fix the wholes on an expensive cloth with cheap old cloth!? is it gonna look good and properly fixed after!? thats why our filthy blood can only be washed with sinless blood and who else has sinless blood other than God the creator himself!?? see how simple and flows very smooth and clear but no matter how clear and simple it can get, even if many will believe, many others will continue to disbelieve and continue to ask for more but when their time comes there is no excuse to give to christ as to why they disbelieved!😢 ✝️❤️✝️
Second Corinthians 5:21. Second Corinthians 9:15. It happens when we believe on Jesus for the free gift of eternal life. Acts11:16 John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized by the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 1;13-14. Ephesians 4:30. Baptism does nothing. It is a picture of our death, burial, and being raised from the dead at the resurrection. The thief on the cross, saved by faith alone. Romans 4;5. Believing is repenting. Repenting is believing. It is the Greek word, metanoia, which simply means to change your mind. To go from unbelieve to belief. John 6:47. John 5;24. John 6:40. John 6;29. John 10:28-29. The gospel of John does not have the word repent one time, but it has believe over 85 times. Acts 16:31 plus nothing. Baptism only gets you wet. It is Jesus life, death, burial and being raised from the dead that save us. First John 5:13. Plus nothing.
Jesus Christ the Alpha and the Omega the Beginning and the End. Christians need to hear more teaching like this. The mystery of the cross of Christ, of making the human created body righteous. Man is not totally depraved, but rather frail, and cannot carry enough of the Life force of God for Eternity. The Whole work of Christ from the cradle to the grave ( tomb) and resurrection was to make created humans delivered even from the appearance of sin, temptation. Sin was both imputed to Him and in a real bodily way,. He stepped into a realm beyond perfection. Incorruptibility. Something no created being had up to that point. He was tempted in all points like us , yet without sinning. The test of the cross of Christ in his created human body was the ultimate test.. In an ultimate substance sort of way in His own body. In our understanding we cannot comprehend both fully black and fully white at the same time.(and I don't mean grey)The nature of Christ superceded the nature of sin even though God made Him to be sin.(evil) He tasted death for every man..So we can say that death is swallowed up into victory. It was the Word made Flesh that tasted it all(sin) and proved Himself incorruptible. This is a great mystery. Who His own self bore our sin in His own body on the tree that we being dead to sin might live unto righteousness, by His stripes we are healed. His righteousness is incorruptible.. What He did on the cross was a multidimensional work. The full salvation of the Word made Flesh being made sin and purging it out of every cell of human existence . Unable to be tempted.. a whole new Creature.(. Might help explain the incorruptibles who took the Eucharist frequently ). Jesus closed the door to every possible manifestation of sin for us, In every possible way. Interesting note: Salvador Daly has a painting of Christ on a multidimensional cross. Represented geometrically/mathematically. Just might help the church a lot if this whole subject of the atonement were taught more. His death is life. The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, has made me free from the law of sin and death. Powerful and as Habakuk says, therein is the hiding place of His power. Why Jesus had to go so far in our redemption might have do with the encounter Adam and Eve had with the serpent in the garden. satan being totally depraved,evil and man submitting to satan's will. Why the cross of Christ is likened to Moses lifting up the serpent on the pole in the wilderness.
When this Verse is read, I wonder if it might mean that The Father and Holy Spirit agreed that Jesus would be Human! Humans, because of Adam and Eve are born 'SIN'. Jesus, in order to be Human, needed to feel and understand all that Humans feel. How else could one Pray that Jesus understand our 'sufferings'. I am more comfortable speaking with someone who has gone through what I am going through! Praise Jesus.
The 'sin offering' explanation you've presented as far too cute. Paul is clearly setting up a comparison here: Christ | became | sin so that We | might become | the righteousness of God Was there also a "righteousness of God" offering? The way we are to understand the meaning of "sin" here is clearly in comparison to "the righteousness of God". Clearly some sort of synecdoche is being used in both cases and if you want to understand it the context around the verse seems to make it very clear. None of the Church fathers I've read present the "sin offering" "interpretation" as if the verse is "mistranslated". Obviously the concept of a sin offering is relevant here, because that's what Paul is clearly describing in terms of how Christ became sin. But to say he "became a sin offering" makes no sense because the sin offering itself also *became sin*, in much the same way! You've just kicked the can down the road.
( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? ) Quran 2:62 '' Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians->ANYAllah< Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques ) Quran 22:40 [They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, " Our Lord is God " And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might. Note: Why did Allah protected Churches and Synagogues if they worship false Allah ? ( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? ) Quran 5 48 ''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation.( ie single religion ) But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you (ie Scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you '' >DISPUTE verb < not noun like other religions Islam mean "submission" to God ( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the >MUSLIM< and the Non-Muslims but total "submission" to God ) Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim "submit" to the God? Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work. Note: If you obeyed all the ABOVE Allah-God's moral laws "YOU" submitted to God.( ie Islam mean "submission" to God ) The only people who will enter Paradise those who '' Submitted to God '' ( ie by good deeds ) God does NOT accept your religion of birth but only ''Your Total'' Submission to Him. ( God Allows Interfaith Marriages And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa ) Quran 5:5 ''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers (ie Muslim ) and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless and he in the Hereafter will be among the losers.'' Note: > Only < Islam allows interfaith marriages (>14 hundredsSame God< but They are >ALL Corrupt< more or less, some more than others from their original foundational teaching. The older religion are MORE corrupted than newer religion. Question to Muslim and Christian: Does God / Allah only answer your pray ? And God / Allah does not answer non Muslim / non Christian pray? Did Allah '' Canceled '' all other religions Judaism and Christianity? Quran 5:48 '' And We have revealed to you [O Muhammad] the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture ( ie New and old Testament ) and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. >>>TO EACH OF YOU WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND A METHODone nation>differ qualified < for to enter Paradise ) On the day of judgement God will ''NOT'' judge humanity bases on Sunni Muslim sect VS Shia Muslim sect ''NOR'' by Muslim VS non-Muslim >but< Doer of Goods VS Doer of Evils. '' YOUR " birth in the Muslim's family is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise. '' YOUR " religion / sect / foot long beard is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise. The > qualification < to enter Paradise is > Faith in God and Good Work
mohammed taught and denied the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefor is one of the antichrists. There is no value to his deciet when we know of the truth of Jesus Christ. Follow Christ not one of the antichrist, and you will enter Heaven.
Jesus allowed me to be this new person. I’m a totally different person- my friends and family see it and comment on it all the time. For His work in me I give Him my life.
Beautiful
Glory to God in the highest! Bless you.
Amen we are new creations whenever our old self dies and then we are raised in christ
Glory To The Triune GOD
The sin offering interpretation makes a lot of sense.
Merci. J'en apprends toujours grâce à vous .😊💙
Glory To The Triune GOD
Really interesting and very useful to have this under our belt when talking to non-believers. 👍
It is also a great example of why Apostolic Tradition is so important to properly understand Scripture.
I just discovered this channel. Thank you for how you make the scriptures come alive. Will be watching the rest of the videos. What a blessing!
St John Bosco Guide, Teacher and Model for Priests: ruclips.net/video/tRa4MhjDjF0/видео.html
Thank you, Dr. Brant Pitre. This was so incredibly helpful for me.
When I entered Religious Life, I remember reading the line "He who knew no sin was made sin for us" in the Psalm Prayers during the Liturgy of the Hours. Without knowing much about Theology, I asked, "Who wrote this? Was it one of the Vatican II Bishops?"
When someone told me that it came from Paul's own writings, I thought, "Well, he must have been wrong about a few things."
As soon as I saw the title to this video, it piqued my interest. Before hearing your conclusion, I thought that the second explanation made more sense (though I see how you draw some conclusions from the first ... St. John Chrysostom's quote put a lot into context for me). Like much of your work, the linguistic connections (found in Leviticus 4) certainly clarify some of the discrepancies that some may miss out on from a purely anglicized lens.
I will have to remember to relay a lot of this to others as I discover the answers to these deep questions in my own prayer life. Grateful to know that even trained Theologians have wrestled with this! Your work continues to inspire and inform so many and is a great gift to the Church. Thank you so much and God Bless!
Thank you Dr. Pitre!
An excellent presentation! Thank you, Dr. Pitre.
You have a great gift to give us a very special understanding Clearly to know God better.
You have my prayers.we use your writings for our continued formation.we love it.thank God.
Absolutely brilliant insights. So now to follow this up appropriately, I'm going to play the song Alelulia!!!! 😁Thank you, Dr. Pitre, and may God bless you and yours ☮🛐✝️😊
Great explanation! I've been wrestling with this verse since I revert to the Catholic faith. I use to believe in Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
The problem with substitution theory is it is in contradiction with the Pauline theology of sharing/participation "in Christ"/"with Christ". The second explanation is more plausible since sacrifice originally means "to make holy" (sacra and facere). Christ took upon himself our human nature and offered Himself (including the human nature) as a sacrifice i.e. he made holy our human nature and offered it back to God. Jesus does it alone himself, but through the sacrament of Baptism, we share in his divine nature and offer our human nature as a sacrifice (again, make holy) in Christ, with Christ to the Father.
Gal. 2:20 - I am crucified with Christ
Romans 12:2 - Offer your bodies (plural, our bodies) as a living sacrifice (singular, the one sacrifice of Jesus).
Gal. 2:20 and Romans 12:2 are only possible through sharing/participation. Substitution is a very very big contradiction in this Pauline theology.
Can u share more resources that explain why the protestant view is wrong please. My mind is infested with protestant theology regarding certain verses
@@justsomevids4541 Penal Substutionary Atonement (PSA), is Nestorian. Let me explain, in true Christianity God the Son assumes a human nature and cecomes human, Jesus Christ. In Nestorianism God the Son shares space with a human person named Jesus who is the one hungering,, thirsting and weeping. This might seem small but think of it, in Christianity the Son is the subject of all the events of the Gospel, hunger, thirst, weeping and so on. In Nestorianism God the Son is sharing space with a human named Jesus. In Christianity God made flesh goes to the cross and offers Himself in sacrifice as a sin offering and then Jesus' human soul enters the realm of the dead, defeats the powers of evil, Satan, death and so on. Then in His Resurrection all humans will rise with Him and the world will be restored. In PSA the Trinity cannot be broken so a Nestorian Jesus who is a human separated from the Son is damned while the Son is unaffected, while we get the credit for the perfect human Jesus' life. No need for a Resurrection here, you are covered and that is all that matters because you subscribe to the right theology. This is Gnosticism. Also might seem to make sense on the surface but no mere human can save you. Only God made flesh can save you. Nestorianism then is all wet and with it PSA.
I myself am wrestling how to have a proper conversation with Protestants on how the Catholic view on atonement is different from Penal Substitution. As a new convert to Catholicism, I too am infested with protestant doctrines that sometimes I wonder how to draw the line. For instance how can a Catholic admit that there’s some kind of substitution that is different from the kind of substitution that Penal Substitution entails? Is it only the “participatory” element? It seems too thin a line to make a big deal out of it. I know Catholics can’t say that Jesus suffered the full wrath of God against sin at the cross. But if that’s true then in what sense then is Christ’s sacrifice a substitution? So as of now, I am just emphasizing that Jesus became a Sin Offering, not in a substitutionary sense but as a pleasing aroma to the Father.
@@raeldc Jesus did take our punishment in a manner of speaking, the Son in becoming human experiences hunger, thirst and so on in His earthly life and in His final hours flogging, crucifixion and death. This was something that prior to the Incarnation He did not experience. (Quick note by dying the Son, Jesus Christ, did not cease to exist rather His body and soul were seperated). Like I said in a sense He is taking our punishment as prior to the Fall these things did not exist. Of course this is not the same as saying that God damned a Nestorian Jesus on the cross.
@@raeldc If you study the Penal Substitutionary Atonement seriously you'll find out that it is a theory anchored in an eisegetical interpretation of the passages usually used by Protestants.
When reading the Bible they have these eyeglasses of the courtroom analogy wherein God the Father is the judge, the sinner is the accused on trial, and Jesus is the lawyer. Since the sinner is guilty and worthy of punishment, Jesus made an exchange with the sinner. He was the one punished by the Father (on the cross) in place of the sinner.
Now, wearing those eyeglasses all the verses that say "Jesus died FOR US","Jesus died because of us", "Jesus bore our sins" will be read as "Jesus died IN OUR PLACE" when in fact you can't see in the verse the phrase "IN OUR PLACE".
For Protestants "FOR US" means "IN OUR PLACE". But that's not true.
"FOR US" means Jesus did it all by himself. But we are called to share in his suffering, share in his death, and share in His resurrection so that we can share in his divine life and have a newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4).
So what's happening here is eisegesis, they are putting the meaning that they want in the verses because they read it the way they want to.
PSA is the devolution of Anselms Theory of Satisfaction. Remember that Anselm's approach was philosophical. He was using reason and analogy that were well known during his time to answer the objections of the pagans to the Christian faith.
Here is a quotation from the Cur Deus Homo...
"The first contains the objections of infidels, who despise the Christian faith because they deem it contrary to REASON; and also the reply of believers…in the second book, likewise, as if nothing were known of Christ, it is moreover shown by PLAIN REASON..."
When the Reformers "developed" their PSA doctrine they use Anselm's approach - the use of analogy - and anchored their whole soteriology in a mere analogy.
By exposing that PSA was anchored in an eisegetical interpretation of the Scripture the whole Protestant soteriology would crumble down.
Thank you for this.
While entering the church and reading through the Old Testament after reading the gospels, the idea of Jesus being a sin offering jumped out at me pretty immediately as well as the deep connection to the passover. I also believe another valid interpretation of this verse from Paul is that simply death came from sin and in some way Paul is telling us Jesus died/became death so that through this miracle of humility, we have a bridge in Jesus to everlasting life. I think that the cross was, and Jesus's whole earthly life and resurrection, was the convergence of many themes in the old testmant into a single event, meaning that there aren't singular types or interpretations to cling to, but only the fullness of God's glory to take in, contemplate, and abide with by the guidance of our holy church.
Excellent
I always enjoy these videos. Very helpful
God bless you bravo 👏
I thinkkkkk I’ve heard it worded, regarding the baptism of Christ. That he borrow our sin and was plunged into the water. Micah He will turn again; He will have compassion upon us; He will subdue our iniquities. And Thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.
Wonderful explanation. God bless you Dr Pitre
Jesus is the superhero that took the bullet for us.
This was most helpful Dr Pitre. It also offers an alternative to the Calvinist interpretation the that verse.
Thank you Dr. Pitre. God bless.😇
I always interpreted it as the second explanation because of the continuing theme of sacrifice in the Old Testament- Abraham/ Isaac- what greater sacrifice than your innocent child. Also the strict laws on sacrifice as an appeasement to God throughout the OT. It would also explain the heartbreaking question of Jesus shortly before he died" my God why have you forsaken me"? There could be no greater sacrifice for humanity's continuing sinfulness despite sacrifice than God to make Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice once and for all for humanity.
Thank you Dr. Pitre for this explanation... 🙏
What about the serpent on the tree of Eden; then in the desert
The Lamb of God as the offering of our sin.
And why should we despair that God should speak in men, Who spoke in the thorn bush? [ Exodus 3:4 ]
God did not despise the bush, and would He might give light also to my thorns.
- St. Ambrose
Excellent!
Great explanation.
this was helpful; thank you! sometimes, though, the passage or explanation seem closer to penal substitution vs vicarious satisfaction. is there a way to tighten my understanding so as not to hear the former?
Yes, Jesus was the substitutionary sacrifice of atonement, the Lamb of God, prefigured by the Passover Lamb as well as all the other sacrifices. Notice, those sacrifices were not about punishing the victim, but were the offering of something of value to the one offering it. Whereas those old sacrifices of animals were of finite value and only covered sins, the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God (Jesus, the Divine Person) is infinite in value and utterly obliterates all traces of Sin (when applied to the individual), truly purifying those who offer it in union with Jesus (ie, those who believe, and call on His Name, etc).
Fantastic lesson.
In other words, He became the scapegoat that’s sent away to perish. Blamed & punished for the actions of others. He’s sinless indeed. Thank you.
ruclips.net/video/3U9nq44PIy0/видео.html
No, not a scapegoat, that would mean He was punished in our place. But that's not accurate. Instead, He was the sacrificial Lamb, a sacrifice of atonement, not a substitute for punishment. That idea (Penal Substitution) is the Lutheran/Calvinist view, found nowhere in Christian doctrinal history before the 16th century.
Dr. Brant Pitre... if I may offer this thought on 2 Cor 5:21. ... "made him to be sin" ... meaning only one without sin can take away the sin of the world or "make atonement for our sin." It would not be possible for "him to be sin" or be the "new Adam" if he was already with sin.
💖 THANK YOU! That phrase that Christ became sin always bothered me and couldn't find an explanation. You say go to the early Church to get answers. Where is a good source for those plus a place where you can search for key words? THANK YOU!
Could this explain the curse of Adam that, although without any type of sin, even Jesus subjected himself to as in the old world and therefore creating the new in the resurrection? As in Paul Explaination in Romans 5?
Fun fact, in the Talmud when the Rabbi's are discussing the death of a Moshiach in Zechariah12:10, there is a debate because some of them interpreted Zechariah12:10 as being about the slaying of the evil inclination, which is basically the Jewish equivalent to original sin.
[Sukkah52a] _"The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who said that the lament is for Messiah ben Yosef who was killed, this would be the meaning of that which is written in that context: “And they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for his only son” (Zechariah __12:10__). However, according to the one who said that the eulogy is for the evil inclination that was killed, does one need to conduct a eulogy for this? On the contrary, one should conduct a celebration. Why, then, did they cry? The Gemara answers: This can be understood as Rabbi Yehuda taught: In the future, at the end of days, God will bring the evil inclination and slaughter it in the presence of the righteous and in the presence of the wicked."_ [Sukkah52a]
Amazing!, you can see how this particular puzzle was solved for Paul with the crucifixion of Christ, the Moshiach _became sin_ so that we might be reconciled to God.(2Corinthians5:21)
Moreover they go on the paraphrase Paul again concerning the slaying of the Moshiach/evil inclination;
[Sukkah52a] _"For the righteous the evil inclination appears to them as a high mountain, and for the wicked it appears to them as a mere strand of hair. These weep and those weep. The righteous weep and say: How were we able to overcome so high a mountain? And the wicked weep and say: How were we unable to overcome this strand of hair?"_
Compare with;
1Corinthians1:18 For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
2 Corinthians 5:21 is valid, but, so too ,is 1 John 2:2 , as well. 🇺🇸🇺🇲❤️🇻🇦✝️☦️🛐🙏⛪😇👼🕊️
He became sin means he became sin offering for man
If sin was not bad, there would have not been blood shed from Christ. If God's mercy was not intended, there would not have been a crucifixion. In dying He restored our death, in rising He restored our life. Christ did not become sin as He is incapable of sin. However, He conquered the effects of sin which is suffering and death.
Jesus TOOK ON all our sins, he did not become sin.
I wish you explained the daily catholic readings .hold on, I see you do this.
”I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:“
2 Samuel 7:14 KJV.
*If **_he_** commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men.* but Jesus had committed no sin, how was he then chastened? Because as a substitution for sin, insomuch as the Mosaic Law required the slaughter of animals to take the place of sin, yet the animal had committed no sin but sheds its blood, so too does Christ suffer the punishment of sin in the chastening of men, as this is the only way sacrifice can be fulfilled. It is fundamentally to place transgression of one onto another so as to not receive the punishment oneself.
Another verse relevant here is Galatians 3:13
”Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:“
I prefer the second explanation.
SACRAMENT of Reconciliation coud be mentioned here. A KEY to the Kingdom. we are sinners.
Hi my comment might be off topic, but I have a question question and doesnt seem to find the answer. Did Catholic church removed a verse in the 10 commandments?
No. What verse are you talking about?
Hi Ermac.
No the RC church did NOT ☺️.
Some believe the church removed the commandment on graven images so that we could make them. Two commandments are different. Google Protestant versus Catholic ten commandments but read Catholic writers or " Did the Catholic Church Change the Ten Commandments? By Tim Staples".
I can't explain due to space, but.. Read the Catholic explanation, It's been done in Light and Truth.
Hope this helps.
May God bless you and open all our spiritual eyes.Come Holy Spirit, Fill our hearts, Amen🙏☺️
No. Some anti-Catholics came up with that charge simply because they chose to number the commandments differently. I think they make separate commandments out of two adjacent clauses while the Church traditionally keeps them together. There are no numbers in the original text, so someone has to interpret where exactly each one starts and ends.
@@gerardos256 2nd commandment, thou shall not worship idols or images created by man.
@@ermacsmith3709 it's in my Bible, so the verse was not removed. Any other question?
"Sin offerings function as substitutionary sacrifices for sin." (At the 15:49 mark)
But sin offerings were "most holy", and were to be eaten only by the holy priests in a holy place. This shows that they were not considered to be tainted, condemned or sinful in any way. Wouldn't such animals be tainted if they were killed as substitutes for condemned sinners?
"These are the regulations for the sin offering: The sin offering is to be slaughtered before the Lord in the place the burnt offering is slaughtered; it is most holy. The priest who offers it shall eat it; it is to be eaten in the sanctuary area, in the courtyard of the tent of meeting. Whatever touches any of the flesh will become holy, and if any of the blood is spattered on a garment, you must wash it in the sanctuary area. The clay pot the meat is cooked in must be broken; but if it is cooked in a bronze pot, the pot is to be scoured and rinsed with water. Any male in a priest’s family may eat it; it is most holy." (Leviticus 6:24-29 NIV)
A sin offering is really the same as being sin.
Highlights how important Tradition is - in this case the Early Church Fathers rather than formal Council. By throwing away Tradition, Protestantism has lost all these teachings (including the understanding of the old languages). I had, for example, stumbled on all sorts of "modern" takes on this, and they were a bit wild.
Now I understand why he died for us.
Seen again 6th, Feb. 2023.
Why do you doubt a Scripture?
If you study the Penal Substitutionary Atonement seriously you'll find out that it is a theory anchored in an eisegetical interpretation of the passages usually used by Protestants.
When reading the Bible they have these eyeglasses of the courtroom analogy wherein God the Father is the judge, the sinner is the accused on trial, and Jesus is the lawyer. Since the sinner is guilty and worthy of punishment, Jesus made an exchange with the sinner. He was the one punished by the Father (on the cross) in place of the sinner.
Now, wearing those eyeglasses all the verses that say "Jesus died FOR US","Jesus died BECAUSE OF US", "Jesus bore our sins" will be read as "Jesus died IN OUR PLACE" when in fact you can't see in the verse the phrase "IN OUR PLACE".
For Protestants "FOR US"/"BECAUSE OF US" means "IN OUR PLACE". But that's not true.
"FOR US" means Jesus did it all by himself. But we are called to share in his suffering, share in his death, and share in His resurrection so that we can share in his divine life and have a newness of life. (Romans 6:3-4).
So what's happening here is eisegesis, they are putting the meaning that they want in the verses because they read it the way they want to.
PSA is the devolution of Anselms Theory of Satisfaction. Remember that Anselm's approach was philosophical. He was using reason and analogy that were well known during his time to answer the objections of the pagans to the Christian faith.
Here is a quotation from the Cur Deus Homo...
"The first contains the objections of infidels, who despise the Christian faith because they deem it contrary to REASON; and also the reply of believers…in the second book, likewise, as if nothing were known of Christ, it is moreover shown by PLAIN REASONING..."
When the Reformers "developed" their PSA doctrine they use Anselm's approach - the use of analogy - and anchored their whole soteriology in a mere analogy.
By exposing that PSA was anchored in an eisegetical interpretation of the Scripture the whole Protestant soteriology would crumble down.
PSA is the most execrable heresy ever devised. It turns the Father, as Beloc said, into some kind of Moloch god.
All of the animals offered for sacrifice were sinless, as only humans can sin.
God in the beginning said the wages of sin is death! no matter how good u r if u sin god can not accept u into his kingdom! he said if u break one command is like u broke them all! he also said the sin will be forgiven by blood! this explains to u why god had to come down as the lord jesus christ in human flesh and had to die for us all! his blood is righteous so it makes sense to wash our blood with righteous blood in order to wash it completely and restore our filthy blood with clean blood! thats why some people ask me why god had to do that, he could have just said all will be forgiven but that will contradict what he said before! also i hear people saying to me he could have used a regular human body or an animal to shed their blood instead of god's blood but again u can not wash and restore filthy blood by another filthy blood! it is like washing dirt with dirty water u can not get a good solution in the end or it is like how christ described it in the bible saying is it right to mix good wine with cheap wine?? or is it right to fix the wholes on an expensive cloth with cheap old cloth!? is it gonna look good and properly fixed after!? thats why our filthy blood can only be washed with sinless blood and who else has sinless blood other than God the creator himself!?? see how simple and flows very smooth and clear but no matter how clear and simple it can get, even if many will believe, many others will continue to disbelieve and continue to ask for more but when their time comes there is no excuse to give to christ as to why they disbelieved!😢 ✝️❤️✝️
Second Corinthians 5:21. Second Corinthians 9:15. It happens when we believe on Jesus for the free gift of eternal life. Acts11:16 John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized by the Holy Spirit. Ephesians 1;13-14. Ephesians 4:30. Baptism does nothing. It is a picture of our death, burial, and being raised from the dead at the resurrection. The thief on the cross, saved by faith alone. Romans 4;5. Believing is repenting. Repenting is believing. It is the Greek word, metanoia, which simply means to change your mind. To go from unbelieve to belief. John 6:47. John 5;24. John 6:40. John 6;29. John 10:28-29.
The gospel of John does not have the word repent one time, but it has believe over 85 times. Acts 16:31 plus nothing. Baptism only gets you wet. It is Jesus life, death, burial and being raised from the dead that save us. First John 5:13. Plus nothing.
Jesus did not appear to be sin or to be a sinner but HE became SIN.
Jesus Christ the Alpha and the Omega the Beginning and the End. Christians need to hear more teaching like this. The mystery of the cross of Christ, of making the human created body righteous. Man is not totally depraved, but rather frail, and cannot carry enough of the Life force of God for Eternity. The Whole work of Christ from the cradle to the grave ( tomb) and resurrection was to make created humans delivered even from the appearance of sin, temptation.
Sin was both imputed to Him and in a real bodily way,. He stepped into a realm beyond perfection. Incorruptibility. Something no created being had up to that point. He was tempted in all points like us , yet without sinning. The test of the cross of Christ in his created human body was the ultimate test.. In an ultimate substance sort of way in His own body.
In our understanding we cannot comprehend both fully black and fully white at the same time.(and I don't mean grey)The nature of Christ superceded the nature of sin even though God made Him to be sin.(evil) He tasted death for every man..So we can say that death is swallowed up into victory. It was the Word made Flesh that tasted it all(sin) and proved Himself incorruptible. This is a great mystery. Who His own self bore our sin in His own body on the tree that we being dead to sin might live unto righteousness, by His stripes we are healed. His righteousness is incorruptible.. What He did on the cross was a multidimensional work. The full salvation of the Word made Flesh being made sin and purging it out of every cell of human existence . Unable to be tempted.. a whole new Creature.(. Might help explain the incorruptibles who took the Eucharist frequently ). Jesus closed the door to every possible manifestation of sin for us,
In every possible way.
Interesting note: Salvador Daly has a painting of Christ on a multidimensional cross. Represented geometrically/mathematically.
Just might help the church a lot if this whole subject of the atonement were taught more. His death is life. The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus, has made me free from the law of sin and death.
Powerful and as Habakuk says, therein is the hiding place of His power. Why Jesus had to go so far in our redemption might have do with the encounter Adam and Eve had with the serpent in the garden. satan being totally depraved,evil and man submitting to satan's will. Why the cross of Christ is likened to Moses lifting up the serpent on the pole in the wilderness.
Christ has certainly been an idol of hypocrisy.
take that penal substitution
jesus was made sin (the fullness of sin, so sin gets wiped out of existence in the cross
When this Verse is read, I wonder if it might mean that The Father and Holy Spirit agreed that Jesus would be Human! Humans, because of Adam and Eve are born 'SIN'. Jesus, in order to be Human, needed to feel and understand all that Humans feel. How else could one Pray that Jesus understand our 'sufferings'. I am more comfortable speaking with someone who has gone through what I am going through! Praise Jesus.
The 'sin offering' explanation you've presented as far too cute. Paul is clearly setting up a comparison here:
Christ | became | sin
so that
We | might become | the righteousness of God
Was there also a "righteousness of God" offering?
The way we are to understand the meaning of "sin" here is clearly in comparison to "the righteousness of God". Clearly some sort of synecdoche is being used in both cases and if you want to understand it the context around the verse seems to make it very clear.
None of the Church fathers I've read present the "sin offering" "interpretation" as if the verse is "mistranslated". Obviously the concept of a sin offering is relevant here, because that's what Paul is clearly describing in terms of how Christ became sin. But to say he "became a sin offering" makes no sense because the sin offering itself also *became sin*, in much the same way! You've just kicked the can down the road.
( Do Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? )
Quran 2:62
'' Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians->ANYAllah< Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques )
Quran 22:40
[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, " Our Lord is God " And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
Note: Why did Allah protected Churches and Synagogues if they worship false Allah ?
( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? )
Quran 5 48
''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation.( ie single religion ) But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you (ie Scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you '' >DISPUTE verb < not noun like other religions
Islam mean "submission" to God
( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the >MUSLIM< and the Non-Muslims but total "submission" to God )
Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim "submit" to the God?
Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work.
Note: If you obeyed all the ABOVE Allah-God's moral laws "YOU" submitted to God.( ie Islam mean "submission" to God )
The only people who will enter Paradise those who '' Submitted to God '' ( ie by good deeds )
God does NOT accept your religion of birth but only ''Your Total'' Submission to Him.
( God Allows Interfaith Marriages And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa )
Quran 5:5
''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And [lawful in marriage are] chaste women from among the believers (ie Muslim ) and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless and he in the Hereafter will be among the losers.''
Note: > Only < Islam allows interfaith marriages (>14 hundredsSame God< but They are >ALL Corrupt< more or less, some more than others from their original foundational teaching. The older religion are MORE corrupted than newer religion.
Question to Muslim and Christian:
Does God / Allah only answer your pray ?
And God / Allah does not answer non Muslim / non Christian pray?
Did Allah '' Canceled '' all other religions Judaism and Christianity?
Quran 5:48
'' And We have revealed to you [O Muhammad] the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture ( ie New and old Testament ) and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. >>>TO EACH OF YOU WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND A METHODone nation>differ qualified < for to enter Paradise )
On the day of judgement God will ''NOT'' judge humanity bases on Sunni Muslim sect VS Shia Muslim sect ''NOR'' by Muslim VS non-Muslim >but< Doer of Goods VS Doer of Evils.
'' YOUR " birth in the Muslim's family is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
'' YOUR " religion / sect / foot long beard is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
The > qualification < to enter Paradise is > Faith in God and Good Work
mohammed taught and denied the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, and therefor is one of the antichrists. There is no value to his deciet when we know of the truth of Jesus Christ. Follow Christ not one of the antichrist, and you will enter Heaven.
Go watch Sam Shamoun. His channel is SHAMOUNIAN. He shows the errors and lies of the Quran and that guy Muhammad.
No muslims do not go to heaven..ANYONE THAT DOESN'T BELIEVE IN THE SON DOES NOT HAVE ETERNAL LIFE. THAT INCLUDES JEWS. THAT INCLUDES FALSE CHRISTIANS
Peace be with you!
@@DroppyTup Peace be with you! too !!
Thank you, Dr. Pitre