What about the fact that Paul, in Acts sacrifices for his vow? Isn’t that the two temples in operation at the same time? And Paul is not keeping a vow just so he can look like a Jew in order to reach the Jews. The intention is to make sure the unbelieving Jews see that he IS FAITHFUL TO TORAH.
@ShaulTzuar 2 days ago What about the fact that Paul, in Acts sacrifices for his vow? Isn’t that the two temples in operation at the same time? And Paul is not keeping a vow just so he can look like a Jew in order to reach the Jews. The intention is to make sure the unbelieving Jews see that he IS FAITHFUL TO TORAH. *Well, the intention was to hide that he was teaching different doctrine from what James and the Elders of the church in Jerusalem were teaching. Notice, the same Jews in question accusing Paul had no stated beef with James and the Elders. Where was Paul’s claim “For the law is not for a righteous man” in 1Tim 1:9, “We are not under the law, but under grace” in Romans 6:14, the whole ifelection is by works, then grace is no more grace ordeal in Romans 11:6 or the whole push against circumcision making you a debtor to do the whole law and Christ profiting you nothing in Galatians 5:2-3? Paul was circumcised according to the book of Phillipeans. By Paul’s own standard in Galatians 5:2-3 Christ profits him nothing. And Paul appears to have slipped under James radar until all hell broke loose in Acts 21 a few verses later. Apparently, James eventually started going through Paul’s writings to figure out what happened, and realized that paul was teaching a different doctrine of justification than what James teachs. Because James 2:17 accuses Romans 4:5 to be a doctrine of dead faith, if Paul is pushing faith without works. The same would be the case for Ephesians 2:8-9. What James should have read was 2Corinthians 12:7. Just one chapter after telling us to not marvel that Satan’s ministers are transformed into ministers of righteousness, Paul states that he has a “messenger of Satan” in 2Cor 12:7. Then he proceeds to mention he can’t get rid of this thorn in his flesh, and God wouldn’t take it away either, leading to the convenient excuse that God’s grace was sufficient for Paul! Yeah right! If grace leaves a person high and dry like that, then how well will grace work when it comes to our salvation in Ephesians 2:8-9??? And if Paul was a true apostle, didn’t he know christ gave his true apostles power over all devils in Luke 9:1, not merely a few? Paul should have had no difficulty getting rid of the “messenger of Satan” unless he was lying about being an apostle. And what about when Paul, after his supposed conversion away from rabbid Phariseeism to become a follower of christ, blurts out in Acts 23:6 that he is still quite the Pharisee? Not only did he bring his supposed conversion to Christianity into serious question with that stunt, but he also brought the entire body of his doctrine under christ’s warning in Matthew 16 to beware the doctrine of the Pharisees. Christ didn’t really care much for the Pharisees and their doctrines, warning us that if our righteousness is not above that of the Scribes and Pharisees we will in no wise enter the kingdom of God in Matthew 5:20. This has always caused me to wonder how Paul would get his “messenger of Satan” in 2cor 12:7 into the kingdom given Christ’s requirement there. Then christ warns us that pharisees like Paul make their procelites twice the child of hell than themselves in Matthew 23:15.
@@coreybray9834 Pharisees is not a bad word. There were good and believing Pharisees. Again your assumptions are not born out by a historical grammatical understanding of first century life.
@@ShaulTzuar @ShaulTzuar 4 days ago @coreybray9834 your assume too much. I don’t think Paul was a hypocrite in acts but you seem to. *I didn’t twist Paul’s arm and make him admit he was still a Pharisee; thus, calling his so called conversion to Christianity into question. He could have said he was a Christian there instead, right or right??? Paul’s admission there also brought the entire body of his doctrine under Christ’s warning in Matthew 16 to beware the doctrine of the Pharisees. Christ wouldn’t warn us about that, if it were not important, you know! I find Christ’s warnings really bother a lot of Paul faithful though. It’s aninconvenience they don’t want to deal with. But, when my Savior tells me to beware someone’s doctrine, I do assume a lot that Christ knows better than me how dangerous that person and their doctrine is to my spiritual well being. You might not take Christ’s warnings so seriously though, and that is certainly your choice. But, I find Christ is always right about these sorts of things. What is funny is that I always find myself defending the words of Christ when I am dealing with those who sympathize with Paul. It is as if Christ’s words just don’t resonate with these people quite like Paul’s words do. But, John 10 and Revelation 14 suggest to me that those who actually make it don’t follow Paul wheresoever he goes, but follow Christ instead.
@@ShaulTzuar @ShaulTzuar 4 days ago @coreybray9834 Pharisees is not a bad word. *It’s not exactly a good word either, if Christ spends an entire chapter in Matthew 23 chewing them out up one side and down the other.* There were good and believing Pharisees. *You seem to think so. But, you are doing nothing to demonstrate that is the case here. And yet, Christ still concludes that unless your righteousness is above that of the Scribes and Pharisees you will in no wise enter the kingdom of God in Matthew 5:20. For Christ to make a blanket statement like that about Pharisees suggests the upper limit of their goodness is still not good enough in Christ’s eyes. Maybe you missed the reality of that implication in his logic there in your haste??? It implies that a Pharisee can’t remain a Pharisee and enter his kingdom by definition, because the righteousness of a Pharisee by definition is not good enough to enter his kingdom. I do, however, find it curious you are trying to explain to me here why Christ has them all wrong, but Christ came back in Matthew 23:13 and reminded them that they were failing to enter his kingdom and failing to suffer others to enter in. I would imagine, judging by Christ’s many concerns about Pharisees, if there were any he would certify as being “good”, it was because they were converting away from the foundational teachings of Phariseeism after hearing the complaints Christ raised against them.* Again your assumptions are not born out by a historical grammatical understanding of first century life. *I think they call that a claim without supporting evidence you are employing there. Cheers!
There must be something in the spiritual ether, because everyone is talking about this topic just a month after one of our elders split and started his own congregation because he decided that he couldn't associate with people who believed that any animal sacrifices could ever be legitimately reinstituted. Now at least four different pronomian ministries have published articles and videos with serious discussions of the topic within the last couple of weeks. Great conversation, by the way!
Hebrews absolutely describes two distinct priesthoods in operation simultaneously. The earthly Levitical order in the temporal and the heavenly in the “spiritual” eternal “realm” of you will.
Matthew 26:28 "for this is My blood of the covenant [Jeremiah 31:32], which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (NASB) Hebrews 10:18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, an offering for sin is no longer. (NASB)
The reason many “Torah observant” people concede that Hebrews supposedly implies the earthly sacrificial system is abolished is NOT because that’s just what it says, it’s because they ALSO don’t understand it. It’s not exactly an easy to grasp, super clear explicit book. People insist on interpreting the Scripture from Hebrews instead of interpreting Hebrews from the rest of Scripture. How can we justify reinterpreting clear explicit passages spoken by Christ Himself based on misguided assumptions drawn from vague passages in Hebrews?
The discussion on temporal atonement was great! Thanks guys. One question: how would you deal with Hebrews 10 in regards to discipline, judgment, etc.? It seems to speak about new covenant believers here. Hebrews 10:26-31 26 ¶ For if *we* sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. 28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the *blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,* an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, *The Lord shall judge his people.* 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Well, Paul easily breaks Solberg’s delimma in Galatians 5:2-3. Solberg is not anticipating that those who are circumcised are debtors to do the whole law. And since Paul admits in Phillipeans that he was circumcised on the eighth day, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, Paul would then be obligated to do the whole law, and also Timothy who Paul circumcised in Acts 16:1-3 shortly after the Jerusalem council. However, Gentile converts who were not circumcised would seem to fall under the Acts 15 crowd. So, if Acts 15 and Galatians 5:2-3 are used as the basis of addressing Solberg’s delimma, then you cannot give a definite yes or no answer that universally addresses the cases of all Christians, because on that basis some ar circumcised and others are not. Consequently,their obligations to the law are different as a result of that being the case.
However, by the time we reach Ezekiel 44 and we see god gets upset at the strangers/Gentiles among the Jews who are polluting his sanctuary because they are not circumcised in heart and in flesh as god requires there, they will not be allowed in the restored Davidic temple until they meet that torah based condition of being circumcised in heart and flesh. But, meeting that condition will by necessity bring them to a point where they are debtors to do the whole law too. So, the greater question we should be asking is were the Strangers/Gentiles supposed to be circumcised? If we read Isaiah 56, then the answer would be a resounding yes if they choose the things God delights in by embracing his Sabbath an Covenant. Note, Strangers in Isaiah 56 are not Jews, but they are Gentiles coming into the faith who are offered a name better than sons and daughters in God’s house if they embrace his Sabbath and Covenant. This was the essence of the true gospel to the Gentiles, and the last four verses of Isaiah 56 explains how the leaders and shepherds of god’s people drug his people in the wrong direction, robbing them of this offer God was making, creating the later problem in Ezekiel 44 in the process by the time these Strangers find themselves mingled among the Israelites in the restored Davidic kingdom. So, why was the sacrificial system stopped, but will later be restarted and the levites returned under their salt covenant to their priestly duties??? There is a simple answer to this question too that Solberg is clearly not well versed in. When Lucifer faced off with Christ at the cross, and lost the engagement, Christ showed up after the fact in Revelation 5 and a New Song declaring is worthiness was sung in his honor. For the first time, the question of who is worthy asked by the strong angel, likely Lucifer, at the beginning of Revelation 5 was resolved. Christ was worthy, but Christ is only one member of the Godhead. But, his being worthy opened the door for him to become a High Priest on our behalf in the Heavenly Sanctuary to handle the delicate matters of addressing man’s sin problem.
Since Lucifer could no longer call the character of Christ as our High Priest into question, God should have saved the righteous after the cross and destroyed Lucifer and the wicked. Unfortunately, Christ’s character being cleared did not clear the other two members of the Godhead. But, his blood in Revelation 12 still was able to protect us from Lucifer who is here identified as the “Accuser of the Brethren”. So, Lucifer argued that Christ might be righteous as far as being able to faithfully keep God’s law was concerned, but how do we prove that the law is itself righteous. And this is the question the Father’s character would have to endure, being he is our lawgiver. While God’s law is in question, instead of saving the righteous and immediately plaguing the earth, God suspends the sacrificial system, destroyed the earthly temple and ever since that point god has put it to Lucifer to demonstrate that he could come up with a better law. And Lucifer brought in his buddy the little horn of Daniel 7:25 whose job it was to change times and laws and who would make war with the saints during the time, times and half a time (or 42-months) or 1260-years prophecy from 538 to 1798 when the papacy (the little horn) stood up as the Pontifex Maximus (Supreme priest of the Babylonian religion) and changed god’s times and laws: changing the Sabbath to Sunday, replacing Levitical feasts with secular feasts, disrupting the daily ministration of Daniel 8, Joel 1, Ezekiel 7 and so on. The result of changing times and laws in Revelation 13:4 was that the world started worshipping Lucifer the Dragon and the beast whose little horn tried to impersonate the intercessory role of christ under the Sacrament of Reconciliation. But, this lead to God’s people being warn out in the war that follows from Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 13:5-8. Christ concluded well in advance that if these days were not cut short, no flesh would be saved in Mathew 24, and so the 1260-days prophecy came to an end in 1798 with the arresting of the Pope and collapse of the Roman empire. Shortly afterwards the Sanctuary was ready to be cleansed in 1844 in line with Daniel 8:14 and the return of the daily meat and drink offering in Joel 2,and various Christian groups started slowly returning to the true Sabbath and Levitical feasts and realizing they don’t need a human intercessor because Christ is the only mediator between god and man, undoing the damage the little horn introduced to God’s times and laws. Eventually, God’s law will be fully vindicated, and the law will go forth from zion again in Isaiah 2:1-5 and Micah 4:1-5. God will rebuke the nations, and they will convert their weapons into farming tools and not learn war anymore, proving conclusively that God’s law in tact leads to a far better outcome for our planet than Lucifer’s plan of changing God’s times and laws via the little horn. By this point, the Father’s character will be vindicated, which has to do with the death of the two prophets of Revelation 11 who are killed, resurrected and ascend to heaven just like Christ did back at the crucifixion. Christ’s death ended the first era and his character being tested, and the death, resurrection and ascention of the two prophets of Revelation 11 will vindicate both the words of Christ and the words and character of the Father to end the second era of prophecy. With the law finally vindicated, there is nothing to hold back God’s hand to pour out his plagues. And when christ comes, he will rebuild the temple and resume the sacrificial system, restore the priests even in New Testament prophecies like Revelation 3:12, Revelation 7 and Revelation 20:4-6. So, who are the two prophets of Revelation 11 exactly? Revelation might actually hand us the answer to this question in Revelation 15. Remember, those who get the victory over the beast and its image and such sing the song of Moses and the Lamb (Christ). And those who know the Messianic prophecy of Deuteronomy 18 will know that Moses and Christ are the two prophets discussed there as well. This might explain why god’s people in Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 keep the commandments (that which is found in the writings of Moses) and the testimony and faith of Christ (the Lamb of God). Plus, Moses symbolically represents the Father and the Lamb symbolically represents Christ as types.
Maybe one of the biggest mistakes people make regarding the tabernacle and a place for God to dwell, then having that transfer to themselves is, they then presume God is dwelling in them despite all their uncleanness. Something like: “we’ll, before it was wrong to kill a pig in the tabernacle, but now I can eat a pig and god is still dwelling in me.” I think they’ve made a huge error in presupposing God is dwelling in them Acts 15 states, in summary, in order to be saved, abstain from the pollution of idols Edit: after listening to the entire video, that is exactly what he did, he quoted from the letter writer and blanketed everyone under that “you are the temple” as if he was the recipient of the letter.
1:08:55 Andrew makes a good point here. I am pronomian, and I agree. My issue is, and so what?? Yes. Jesus' sacrifice does remove all sin entirely, nobody disagrees with that and it always has. The issue is what in the text says "therefore, you should not offer sacrifices at all"? I'm guessing he will point to chapter 7, verse 18, but that was not made as a conclusion to the point, that was raised in explaining the nature of Christ's atonement. So where's the "hah, gotcha!"? I feel like I'm supposed to get it from that point, but I just don't.
Galatians 3:13…Messiah redeemed us from the CURSE of the Law. ( which is DEATH )..He became the CURSE for us…His sacrifice conquered DEATH something NO animal sacrifice could do..He conquered DEATH so we could be resurrected…but YHVH does not lie ….the CURSE of death awaits those who practice LAWLESSNESS..some will go from death to death because the MESSIAH can only be crucified ONCE.. Got Torah Got Truth
Great video! I was really hoping to hear the most simple reason for believing in a future sacrifice, that is that GOD himself enjoys them. That's the first thing I pick up on when I read the bible for myself. It was also clear he was upset about not getting them brought brought by a pure hart, that's why he told them to stop not because he hates sacrifices but because he hated the way they treated and twisted his sacrifices. That to me was a major theme in the overall narrative. Anyways great stuff! It really uncovers how hard you have to flip and jump around to come to the "modern" understanding
On the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, David asks God not to remove the Holy Spirit from him in the Psalms. I doubt it's a different Holy Spirit. My bigger contention is that Peter says we should obey God rather than men, and then goes on to say that God gives the Holy Spirit to those that obey Him. This cut the Pharisees to the heart, as it would most Christians if they actually believed what the Word says. On the sacrifices in the temple; these were never meant to save, but to allow the people to draw near to their God. God doesn't delight in the blood of bulls and goats. He prefers obedience rather than sacrifice. He wants us to obey out of love rather than relying solely on His sinless sacrifice. Jesus said that if we love Him, we will keep His commands. Didn't the same One that said do not murder also say Remember the Sabbath and do not eat swine? Everybody loves to quote: Romans 3:23 [23]For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; But fail to read on. Romans 3:24-26 [24]Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: [25]Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; [26]To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Verse 25 says "for the remission of sins that are past." Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. The sacrifice for sin has been paid once and for all, but that doesn't give us a blank check. We can't practice sin and charge it to Jesus' tab.
@AProdigalSonReturned 1 day ago On the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, David asks God not to remove the Holy Spirit from him in the Psalms. I doubt it's a different Holy Spirit. My bigger contention is that Peter says we should obey God rather than men, and then goes on to say that God gives the Holy Spirit to those that obey Him. This cut the Pharisees to the heart, as it would most Christians if they actually believed what the Word says. *But, if we believe what the word says, and Christ warns us to beware the doctrine of Pharisees in Matthew 16, then what should we do when Paul blurts out in Acts 23:6 that he is a Pharisee? Should we turn a blind eye to his doctrine and give him a free pass as millions of Christians constantly do, or should we take Christ’s warnings about Pharisees far more seriously and bring the entire body of Paul’s doctrine under the intended scrutiny of christ’s warning back in Matthew 16? I’m for the latter option myself, because I think that old Pharisee needs to be more effectively scrutinized. I mean, just one chapter after paul warns us to not marvel that Satan’s ministers are transformed into ministers of righteousness in 2Cor 11, Paul then comes back in 2Cor 12:7 and admits he is the one who has a “messenger of Satan”. I’m shocked Christians let that slip under their radar. But, just between you and I, I think most Christians today would rather worship Lucifer anyway. and it shows, why else would god have to call his people out of Babylon in Revelation 18:4, if they happily follow a man with a messenger of Satan who continues to call himself a Pharisee. Why didn’t he call himself a Christian there instead? Didn’t Christ warn that Pharisees like Paul in Matthew 23:15 make their procelites twice the child of hell than themselves, or are we to not believe the word and trust instead that christ is notwell studied in where Pharisees are coming from? What about in John 8:44 when he says they are of their father the devil. Maybe that is the real reason why Paul in 2cor 12:7 is not ashamed to admit he has a messenger of Satan. But, I’ve always wondered that if he is continuing to insist he is a Pharisee, then how is he going to meet Christ’s condition in Matthew 5:20 to make it into the kingdom of God? And wil they let him in with his messenger of Satan? Just a few thoughts for the road…But, just between you and me, I much prefer following the Good Shepherd of John 10. I don’t see him with a messenger of Satan, but instead he seems to understand that Satan is the enemy, not an influence to allow himself or his message to be compromised by when push comes to shove.* On the sacrifices in the temple; these were never meant to save, but to allow the people to draw near to their God. God doesn't delight in the blood of bulls and goats. He prefers obedience rather than sacrifice. *And that makes sense, because God gave a mercy clause in the law, and the conditions for obtaining his mercy in Exodus 20:6 was not sacrificing. It was loving God and keeping his commandments which means a sinner would have to repent to meet those conditions. Interestingly, christ then comes along in Matthew 9:13 and offers the same deal of mercy and NOT SACRIFICE to those who heed his call to repentance. But, if Christ can extend mercy to those who repent, what did he need to go to the cross for???*
He wants us to obey out of love rather than relying solely on His sinless sacrifice. *But, this really doesn’t explain why god needs a sacrifice in the first place. Tell me god is better than these pagan deities who need the pure blood of virgins to satisfy and appease their wrath! Because the way this usually goes, god ends up looking no better. In fact, god ends up looking like a rather heartless, merciless being the way most people try to describe it.* Jesus said that if we love Him, we will keep His commands. *that idea there fits more with the mercy clause of Exodus 20:6. But, then if mercy is obtained by showing God we love him by keeping is commandments, what does christ need to die for if God is clearly capable of mercy through alternative means???* Didn't the same One that said do not murder also say Remember the Sabbath and do not eat swine? Everybody loves to quote: *Yeah, but Paul gets in the way here in romans 7 and makes the excuse that he would like to obey, but he is essentially forced to disobey God, claiming, “Not I, but sin in me.” It makes me cringe thinking a child will read that and be clever enough to use what paul says to take their parents for a real ride. “Gee Mom and Dad, I want to obey you and I do obey you with my mind, but in my flesh dwells no good thing. So, the disobedience I do I willed not, so I conclude it is not I, but sin in me that causes the disobedience. And that is just the way it is, live with it. I have to, I don’t have a choice, being sold under sin!” I am shocked people let Paul get away with Romans 7also. It’s like telling God that if he wants obedience out of us, he is going to have to predestine us, because we are helpless. Is it then any wonder that paul starts heavily talking about predestination and election theology just two chapters later in romans 9??? It’s enough to make me ask, “Why then does Paul think we need to discuss love or faith if we have no will to engage God on such a high level of moral agency and god is just fitting vessels for destruction and glory by election instead??? I always get a kick how he snaps at his reader in Romans 9 as he anticipates that his reader knows he is walking himself into a corner he has no real experience knowing how to properly address and never honestly resolves.* Romans 3:23 [23]For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; *sure, that is why god created repentance. But, why did he create sacrificing?*
You continue: But fail to read on. Romans 3:24-26 [24]Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: *Oh, the famed free gift of grace, you mean a gift with no obligatory strings attached? Then obedience is not required, else the gift of grace is not truly a free gift at all. And that is why Paul offers that we are saved by grace and not of works in Ephesians 2:8-9, removing any obligatory obedience which was formerly required in the mercy clause of Exodus 20:6 and Matthew 9:13. It’s curious, however, because James didn’t teach that we were justified freely in James 2. He concludes that faith without works is both dead and imperfect faith. But, the real shocker is that while Paul was teaching the church of ephesus that they were saved by grace through faith and not of works in Ephesians 2:8-9, Christ comes back in Revelation 2 in his message to the church of Ephesus and warns them explicitly to repent and do the first works, else he will remove their candle. That’s pretty much the opposite of what Paul was teaching, but let’s make that our little secret. We don’t want it getting out that the Ephesians rejected Paul, and Christ praises them in Revelation 2 for trying those who say they are apostles and are not, but are found to be liars. Was that christ’s way of again exposing that Paul is a serious problem and Christians need to join the church of Ephesus in waking up about Paul? Actually, Paul admits to Timothy that all of Asia had departed from him, so it wasn’t just the church of Ephesus who eventually rejected Paul. Paul’s problems seem to have gotten worse after the events of Acts 21. I always wondered if things would have turned out better for Paul if he had heeded the warning of those speaking by the Holy spirit in Acts 21, telling him to not go up to Jerusalem.* [25]Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; *Why, when God could bypass the sacrifice of christ and simply forgive a sinner who repents as he promised? Christ said mercy and NOT SACRIFICE, not mercy demands a sacrifice in Matthew 9:13.* [26]To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Verse 25 says "for the remission of sins that are past." Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. *And christ said that with confidence like he fully expected she could do it too. that is very different from Paul’s lazy attitude in romans 7 though, because Paul is sure that is impossible: insisting he is sold under sin and that sin in him is taking over preventing him from ever being able to comply with such a directive of Christ.* The sacrifice for sin has been paid once and for all, but that doesn't give us a blank check. *Says who? If all sins I would ever think to commit are already paid for before I commit them, it’s not like Christ can go back to his Father and get a refund after already being punished as my Substitute to license me as being righteous for sinning up a storm in advance back on the cross. Just saying I don’t have a blank check out of a need to mitigate the impact of the view you are holding because you have some idea how dangerous what you ar suggesting above truly is doesn’t mean you are out of the woods here either. This idea of paying for sins comes with a lot of other dangerous ideas you are not accounting for here. But, the idea you are really overlooking is that if Christ pays in advance, our sins had to be transferred to his account from our account whether he pays for them or not. So, if they are not held to my account, what would God charge me with seeing my account is empty of all sin that was already transferred? And if christ paid for our sins in advance back at the cross, why are Christians still dying off as if to say the sin is still attached to them, and was never actually dealt with? The whole point of a Substitute being judged and punished in our place and dying for our sins is so we don’t have to die for them ourselves; hence the term, Substitute! But, the way Substitutionalists apply that term is very assert and deny with sleight of hand in their application as they cross their fingers and hope no one notices how the scam works. And how long is God supposed to act like he didn’t know he got paid off? 2-Days, 2-months, 2-years, or 2,000-years? If god was paid up in full by christ, death and dying on our planet should have ceased the moment Christ appeared before his Father and his sacrifice was accepted. One would think Revelation 5 would be a good indication that God accepted it long ago, but he keeps letting us die off because maybe he likes watching us squirm and suffer for squirts and giggles? Or, is it here that the scam theology of paying for sins by a Substitute really starts to fall to pieces for the fraud it was always intent on being???* We can't practice sin and charge it to Jesus' tab. *But, if you admit that, then Christ can’t pay for your sins. Any sin you commit is practicing sin, but the problem is that sin transfer itself is morally wrong. God cannot be a party to falsely charging christ with your sins. It would destroy his righteous reputation as a judge to have his hands anywhere near that kind of mess. A righteous court must honestly establish the guilt of the one on trial for punishment to validly follow, not make fraudulent false charges and pretend they will stick. Then to add insult to injury by being a party to the murder of his falsely accused Son in cold blood would never work. It destroys the whole premise of Substitutionary Atonement Theology which claims that God cares about justice and satisfying the demands of justice. But, when would justice ever demand that we falsely charge the innocent and then murder the falsely charged in cold blood? Justice would never demand such nonsense. So, we need a far better explanation of why Christ went to the cross and the need for the broader sacrificial system, because the concept of atoning for sins is a bit more complex than it seems on the surface.
@@coreybray9834 I'm going to tackle one post at a time, and try to do it methodically. Christ warns us to beware the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees, but what He didn't say is that all Pharisees hold to that false doctrine. There were believing Pharisees that obeyed God rather than men, and Paul was one of them. Yes we should do as the bereans do, and search the scriptures to see if what Paul says is true. Everytime I have done this, he proves true. Would you say that Job is a messenger of satan, or that he was acted upon by satan? In the verse you gave, Paul is explaining that he is having health problems because God is allowing a messenger of satan to keep him in check. 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 [7]And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. [8]For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. [9]And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. [10]Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong. Paul didn't have the false doctrine of the Pharisees. He was a Pharisee because he believed in the resurrection of the dead. He worshipped in accordance with scripture, as witnessed in this passage: Acts 24:9-15 [9]And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so. [10]Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself: [11]Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship. [12]And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city: [13]Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me. [14]But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: [15]And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust. Brother, I mean no offense, but you are going all over the NT to apply anything said about Pharisees to Paul. Jesus wasn't against the Pharisees just because they were Pharisees, it was because many of them had strayed from God's Word. Paul was definitely one that had strayed in the beginning, as he personally persecuted believers. He did not remain in that false doctrine though. As in John 8, Jesus said their father was the devil because they were doing the deeds of the devil. As for Matthew 5:20, I think Paul accomplished that as he said that he worships God in a way that (the majority of) the Pharisees called heresy. He had stopped adding to or taking away from the law. If you have the christian presupposition that Paul is saying the law is done away with, then Peter's warning is in vain. Peter tells us Paul is difficult to understand, and people twist Paul's words to their own destruction. People who refuse to study the OT thoroughly will be confused by Paul often. People who live by addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division will be confused when a mathematician starts throwing out algebraic equations. I agree that the Good Shepherd is the one we should follow. I also believe that Paul doesn't deviate from following Christ. Paul wasn't giving some new pieces of the puzzle, but he did help us find some of the locations where those original pieces fit in. One of the many reasons that Christ had to die was to redeem the House of Israel. Follow this thought: (Deut. 24) the law of the husband, (Jer. 3) divorce of the House of Israel, (Romans 7) how we can return to the first husband; then read Hosea (the overview). I will continue in a reply to my own post.
I'm going to talk about your next three sections in this comment. You were asking about why Christ had to go to the cross for our sin. Brother, God is a God of Justice. When we sin, we cannot turn back time and undo those sins. Even repentance falls short because that will not undo the damage our choices cause. When we repent, we are trying to turn away from what we have done in the past and get back on that narrow path. Repentance doesn't remove sin. Jesus offers mercy in this way: to take on our punishment for what we righteously deserve, if we come to Him and love Him. God isn't asking for a pure human virgin sacrifice; He is asking for absolute obedience. We fall short of this standard because our flesh wars against our spirit. When someone cuts me off in traffic, I am hard pressed not to lash out with hate. Not because I hate that person, but because my flesh reacts to the imminent danger and possibility of harm. When I bring my flesh into submission, I pray for the person. Perhaps they had a reason that I am unaware of, to do what they did. Since we fall short and cannot remove our own sin, God requires punishment because of justice. Other religions end up with virgin sacrifice because they are trying to counterfeit and pervert God's plans. There is no sacrifice that we could bring to appease God's righteous judgement. None. But because God is also the God of Mercy, His physical nature put on flesh and gave Himself in our place. There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down His life for His friends. I capitalize "His" because that is exactly what He did for us. We didn't offer Him up, He offered Himself up. This is where people go wrong with penal substitution. God never said kill a man in your place, but He has said that He lays down His own life in our place. Perhaps not in those exact words, but the jist is all over scripture. From Genesis to Revelation, the lamb that takes away the sin of the world is there. God doesn't need a sacrifice (He could just throw us into the pit because that would be justice). We need His sacrifice. God wants us to rely on Him alone, not any other gods with their false promises. Through Jesus, God offers mercy. That offer comes with terms, though. We are supposed to walk as He walked. When I said Jesus doesn't offer a blank check, I meant that we can't walk in sin constantly while saying Jesus paid the price. The price has been paid, but we will still stand trial. Our sin hasn't been removed as far as the east is from the west just yet. The Word says we will be judged, and that God will account for even every idle word we have spoken. Christ is our mediator so that when we are found guilty, He can offer up His own blood as our ransom. Isaiah 45:17-25 [17]But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. [18]For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else. [19]I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. [20]Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. [21]Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. [22]Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. [23]I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear. [24]Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. [25]In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory. He is our Saviour in Christ, and every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is LORD. There are so many verses that I could quote about God's justice, judgement, and punishment; but also about His love, mercy, and faithfulness. No sin is allowed into the Kingdom. If you look at the majority of what Paul says, his message is this: there is no amount of keeping God's law that can erase even the tiniest amount of sin. Therefore, we need Christ's blood to remove our sin and thank God that Jesus did what He did for us. Otherwise, we would all be going to destruction. Paul doesn't teach that we therefore don't have to keep God's law, but that we cannot save ourselves through it. When he is talking about sin dwelling in his flesh, he is repeating in different ways that our sinful flesh kind of has a mind of it's own. When we touch something really hot accidentally, our flesh reacts before we can use reason. If anyone has ever been addicted to any substances, it becomes very clear in that. While we may want to abstain, our flesh wants to partake to the point of sickness when we refuse. Paul wants us to overcome, and was not giving people an excuse; but rather an understanding of how our flesh wars against our spirit. None of us can live perfectly, but we should strive to. There is a huge difference in making a mistake, and practicing sin. I make mistakes, but I don't excuse them or plan to do them again. 1 John 2:1-6 [1]My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: [2]And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. [3]And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. [4]He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. [5]But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. [6]He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. I think I addressed most of your comments. I didn't do it to prove you wrong, but to give my perspective. I hope you could understand everything I was trying to say. Paul isn't my savior. Yah alone is my Salvation by Yeshua.
@@aProdigalSonReturned @AProdigalSonReturned 22 hours ago @coreybray9834 I'm going to tackle one post at a time, and try to do it methodically. Christ warns us to beware the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees, but what He didn't say is that all Pharisees hold to that false doctrine. *Okay, so how many Pharisees did he say had exceptional doctrine, because if we move beyond his warning to beware their doctrine in Matthew 16, beyond his warning that they were the ones plotting to murder him in Matthew 21, we finally reach Matthew 23 where he spends an entire chapter chewing them out up one side and down the other as if he is completely disgusted with what they had become. To say the majority of their doctrinal positions rubbed Christ the wrong way would be the understatement of the century. And while you might be able to find a Pharisee or two that didn’t fit the typical Pharisee mold, say Nicodemus, for example, who seemed to be more open minded, it would be difficult at best to claim that is the case concerning Paul. By his own admission he was a strong contributor to their murderous streak. Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you. (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day. And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. Acts 22:1-5 Now, I know everyone wants to feel great pity for Paul. But, here is a man admitting openly that he was party to the persecution and murder of not merely one believer in Christ, but many! It turns out the perfect law of the fathers Paul is speaking of above actually teaches against shedding innocent blood more than once. I’ve often wondered if people would be so happy to jump to Paul’s defense if it was one or more of their family members paul was instrumental in murdering? Because it bothers me a bit that Paul wants sympathy for doing all of that, but then Paul turns around and rakes Peter over the coals in Galatians 2 over something a million times less grievous, if what Peter did was even worthy of mention at all. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. Galatians 2:11-12 Yes, because it was dangerous to give those like Paul of the circumcision any unnecessary cause to want to hurl stones in your general direction. How quickly Paul forgets his own past deadly indiscretions. But, have you ever asked yourself why Paul was so quick to circumcise Timothy? Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek: Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium. Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek. Acts 16:1-3 So what, what was paul so afraid of? Like Peter back in the incident in Galatians 2, Paul knew exactly how circumcised Scribes and Pharisees like Paul could be when they found you in the company of uncircumcised Gentiles even those who were only part Greek. So, the Paul faithful will turn a blind eye to whatever Paul does, but the problem is that paul would not turn the same blind eye to what Peter was doing, and was sure Peter needed to be blamed. This is the central tenant of hipocrisy that Christ complained about so much when it came to Pharisees like Paul using the words. But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25 etc., etc., etc.*
I think what people miss is that God commanded us to do these sacrifices and offerings. There’s 2 views on this, either you’re doing these to check this block because God said so, or you’re doing these because you love God and want to obey him and do whatever he wants.. it’s a heart issue.. either your heart is in it or not..those in Isaiah, in the passage that basically lambasts them and their sacrifice and offerings mean nothing to God, their hearts weren’t in it, and God knew it. I think RL has misunderstood that. The sacrifice itself does nothing, but the faith in God is everything.
Does the below sounds like Paul thought Jesus did away with the earthly priesthood.? No past tense used but present tense Heb 8:4-5 TS2009 4 For if indeed He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the Torah, 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly, as Mosheh was warned when he was about to make the Tent. For He said, “See that you make all according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” Exo. 25:40.
“Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses. Beware, therefore, lest what is said in the Prophets should come about: “‘Look, you scoffers, be astounded and perish; for I am doing a work in your days, a work that you will not believe, even if one tells it to you.’”” Acts 13:38-41 ESV
Mr. Schumacher is 1000% a great example of a God fearing, Christian apologist, believer in general. Willing to have a genuinely serious and deep discussion about disagreements, as willing to learn and be corrected as much as correcting and teaching others. God bless both of you always. Great stuff as always Caleb.
Hebrews is specifically about what Yeshua change on the cross. Even more accurate would be to say; Messiah took back the high priest hood. the story of Satan fit such a theme. God taking back His thrown. The High Priesthood is His and belongs to Him and seems to be the only book anywhere. To explicitly state what has been done with the sacrifice of Christ in details. To openly state the normal operating parameters and how the cross changed them. Hence the book of Hebrews, specific change noted to amendment the Torah. My thoughts.
The holy Spirit is given to the one who completes the process of the fear of God and the last person who had it was John and 2 thousand years later me.
Hmm 32:22 question; No...at least, I've never enountered any passages in the tanakh where an intentional sin offering was done....Only the NT alone would bend the tanakh to promote christianity as seen in Hebrews 9:22, chap.10...
The world doesn't realize that they are dealing with the one who God makes a little lower than the angels. A human who God makes a light which means on earth and heaven I'm a big deal.
Hebrews 8:4..Now if HE ( MESSIAH ) were here ON EARTH, He would NOT be a priest at ALL…since there are those who offer the gifts ACCORDING to the LAW…Got Torah Got Truth
The disciples ask Jesus who sinned the boy or his parents that he was born blind Jesus neither the boy or parents sinned he blind so that the glory of God can be shown through him. The boy was not physically blind he blinded of who is and guys I figured out your looking at God elect One the king of the world.
It would seem that the disconnect does ultimately come down to a difference in how one reckons salvation/justification. I would suggest that the concept is being thought of in a temporal/time sense. An overwhelming majority of people (myself included for a long time) view the situation of the people living in a pre-Crucifixion “era” as that of a people living without an accomplished eternal sacrifice temporarily applying bandaid solutions to their sin problem all the way until Messiah came and effected their redemption. While scripture tells of a reality that is not time bound in which people with an accomplished eternal atonement, applied to them via faith in the coming Promise, dealing with the very real temporal consequences of living in a still fallen world with still imperfect bodies, which is very much the state of people living even today, with the only minor difference being we, in a sense, look forward whilst they looked back. In that time innocent animals paid and were affected by the sins of people.Today “innocents” very much still pay for our mess ups, the only real difference is we don’t get to deal with the matter in a God prescribed manner. “innocents” are affected by the consequences of our sins and more pain and/or death results. There essentially isn’t much of a difference between a faithful believer pre-Crucifixion in terms of the historical event and one after. Idk just my two cents.
Let me tell you what's happening here . I have completed the process of the fear of God and I have endured the holys*** curses that is placed upon the one who walks the path of the fear of God . I have broken the generational curse which is the removal of the horizontal line that crosses the vertical line to God. And God is about to show the world what it looks like when someone who fears God. I did it alone with the angel of my presence the first to do it since the one Jesus loved John therefore God is crowning me king of the world and we are rudely taking back the truth from the hands of those who follow the devil's image. And to those who have a demon dwelling in their right eye you be hunted down and slaughter and based on the stinking offerings it's not looking good for you. Jesus said, Another one will come in his own name and him God is forcing his acceptance. Jesus also said, And upon this rock the gates of hell will not prevail against him. Guys I'm that rock and the stone who becomes the chief corner stone. My living sacrifice is completing the process of the fear of God and it is now GAMED and the satanic reign ends with me. King and priest and m going in to the room to speak to God.
Someone correct me if I way off but wouldn’t Paul asking an emphatic rhetorical question like “Do you not know that you are a temple of God…” imply that this is a fact he would’ve expected to know and comprehend FROM Scripture I.e. “Old Testament”? It seems from the context, that it is a fact that is evident from scripture itself. Understanding the tabernacle and temple in a temporal sense was meant to/ did teach the “spiritual” eternal reality of mankind being the temple of God’s Spirit? I hope I don’t sound condescending it’s a genuine question.
If he took away sin, why are people still sinning ? Awesome discussion. I hope Andrew watches this hole video. I believe it will shine light on his on out look. Again, thank you both.
Again and again we see that Satan no longer needs to convince mankind that sin is no longer a concern and some sin is ok to do. Now the church does it for him. It is blaspheming the breath of Elohiym that spoke the ccommandments. Just good old fashioned blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Way to go "church" you're doing the enemies bidding.
So I listened to the entire talk. Honestly, I dont think even Andrew understands his own position, referring to the last 25ish minutes. At the very least, he hasnt thought out his position systematically enough and then be able to teach it clearly. There have been plenty of teachers that I've listened to that I disagree with them on a certain topic, but when they taught the subject, I understood their train of thought and what they were trying to teach. Andrew, even if you are right, you need to come up with a more systematic train of thought that can be easily taught. You confused Caleb, I would say even yourself, and myself. Im sure Im not the only listener that wasnt tracking.
There is no proof that your Messiah is a priest in heaven because that is just a claim your religion makes. Since people can't see what is going on in heaven, no one can really disprove what your religion says. What is the proof for this belief? Second, there is no explanation about what a priest would do in heaven. Are there animal sacrifices like peace offerings, if not sin-offerings? What would the offerings be in heaven? Also, before your Messiah was born, do you believe there was a priest in heaven offering sin offerings or any other sacrifices?
@@kennethgreifer5123 there is no proof - true. May the God of all shalom enlighten your heart by the Ruach. May he regenerate your mind and give you His gift of faith, in the name of Yeshua. One cannot “see” it unless God gives him eyes. Perhaps he will.
The reason many “Torah observant” people concede that Hebrews supposedly implies the earthly sacrificial system is abolished is NOT because that’s just what it says, it’s because they ALSO don’t understand it. It’s not exactly an easy to grasp, super clear explicit book. People insist on interpreting the Scripture from Hebrews instead of interpreting Hebrews from the rest of Scripture. How can we justify reinterpreting clear explicit passages spoken by Christ Himself based on misguided assumptions drawn from vague passages in Hebrews?
@sergloera 1 day ago The reason many “Torah observant” people concede that Hebrews supposedly implies the earthly sacrificial system is abolished is NOT because that’s just what it says, it’s because they ALSO don’t understand it. *That conclusion suggests the author of Hebrews was deeply misinformed then. How can people misunderstand what god is doing if god has written his law in their hearts and concludes in Jeremiah 31:34 that they don’t need teachers like the author of Hebrews anymore to help them to know God? If anyone who is a teacher about god thinks we are under the New covenant, then Jeremiah 31:34 has just put them out of a job. God will not need teachers under the New Covenant once he writes his law in man’s heart. God doesn’t bring us under the New covenant until after the gospel commission and all the teaching about God is over. And even after the gospel commission has ended, god has to remove our stony heart in Ezekiel 11 and 36, because he can’t write his law in a stony heart, because the condition of a heart like an adamant stone as defined by god in Zechariah 7 is a refusal to hear God’s law and the words he sent by his Spirit through his prophets: the same forever rebellion God has Isaiah write a book about in Isaiah 30. When these and other issues are cleared up, then and only then will God actually be in a position to give us a new heart designed to make us fit to allow him to write his law in our heart and bring us under the New Covenant.* It’s not exactly an easy to grasp, super clear explicit book. *I just want to know who told the author of Hebrews that the law needed to be changed in order for Christ to become a priest after the order of Melchizedek, seeing the torah accomidates both priesthoods? And who told the author of Hebrews that the Old Covenant was ready to vanish away in Hebrews 8:13? Didn’t christ warn us to not so much as even think that he came to destroy the law or the prophets either one in Matthew 5:17?* People insist on interpreting the Scripture from Hebrews instead of interpreting Hebrews from the rest of Scripture. *This is what happens when god’s warning in Isaiah 8:20 is utterly disregarded. God never claimed the book of Hebrews was the way to test to see if someone had light or not. But, christ in the gospels is called the “light of the world”, indicating that his doctrine is properly able to pass the test of Isaiah 8:20. I’m not convinced the author of Hebrews ideas all pan out though.* How can we justify reinterpreting clear explicit passages spoken by Christ Himself based on misguided assumptions drawn from vague passages in Hebrews? *It all screams that we are not yet under the New covenant. When we are under the New Covenant for real and God writes his law in our heart, we won’t need any outside interpreter like the author of Hebrews to properly understand God and his words.
@@coreybray9834 I’d just caution against assuming there’s anything inherently “wrong” with Hebrews. If anything, the “helpful” supplied words put in by translators and subsequent misinterpretations is skewed. The scripture itself however contains 0 contradictions.
@sergloera 8 hours ago @coreybray9834 I’d just caution against assuming there’s anything inherently “wrong” with Hebrews. *You mean like when the author of Hebrews in chapter 8 claims the Old Covenant was faulty? So, it is okay for the author of Hebrews to claim something from God is faulty, but it is not okay to claim the author of Hebrews is faulty in what he writes??? Didn’t God give us Isaiah 8:20 as a test for situations like this? Because I suspect the author of Hebrews is in a lot of hot water here, but Christians are just being lazy as usual. That being said, I’d be curious how you reconcile Hebrews 8:13 with Matthew 5:17, because it sounds to me like the author of Hebrews is trying to contradict the Savior’s own claim there. And I am not convinced Hebrews 8:13 passes the test of Isaiah 8:20 either.* If anything, the “helpful” supplied words put in by translators and subsequent misinterpretations is skewed. *That is for you to demonstrate is actually the case. I am not saying you are correct or incorrect here, just that you haven’t really made any kind of a meaningful case for how you reached that conclusion here.* The scripture itself however contains 0 contradictions. *Some like to believe so. If you have a way to prove conclusively that is the case, I would love to see it. Personally, it doesn’t bother me either way. If the Bible has no contradictions, then great, life goes on. If the Bible has a few contradictions, that is okay too, my faith in God isn’t shattered. It just means I have to be aware this happens and I’m fully prepared for that too, and life again goes on. If there is a part of the Bible that is flawless, I suspect it is the collection of verses where God is actually speaking words with his own mouth. Because those are the words Christ says man shall live by in Matthew 4:4. And when Sarah contradicts God and said she didn’t laugh, but God said she did, you don’t believe that to be a contradiction either, right? What about when Christ rebukes Peter in Matthew 16? Are you going to sit here and tell me they were in perfect agreement, or was the Savior’s reasoning correct there and Peter was wrong? Who was right when Christ said Peter would deny him thrice? Peter said that wouldn’t happen, but then it happened. The reality is there are contradictions all over the Bible, because God is constantly correcting the mistakes of people and their failure to understand things correctly. So, contradictions in the Bible are kind of unavoidable. The question which remains is what kind of impact do these contradictions have on the message the Bible is conveying? In most cases I find they show God to be supremely competent and man not so competent. I can live with that being the case, can you??? @@sergloera
@@coreybray9834 the word covenant is not in verse 13. It’s not in verse 7 either. Read it in Greek, it’s not there. A majority of translations insert the word for grammatical “clarity” but they obviously chose the wrong supplied word in that case. A better option potentially would have been “ministry” or “priesthood” or even “tabernacle”. Ideally not supplying any word would have probably been best. If you read this passage in Spanish in the RVR version it actually does not insert anything in verse 7, it simply reads as “Porque si aquel primero fuera sin falta, cierto no se hubiera procurado lugar de segundo.” “if that first would have been faultless, there would have been no need sought for a second” first what? Second what? Can’t be covenant because there were way more than two covenants. There was however only ever two priesthoods, Aaronic/Levitical order and the Melchizedek/Messiah Eternal Order. Without a supplied word the reader can interpret priesthood or tabernacle from the context of the passage instead of being supplied a word derived from incorrect presuppositions from the translators. I myself caught this because I read multiple versions when I study and I frequently consult the RVR because its the version I grew up using in a Spanish speaking church. It does supply the word in verse 13 in italics with a notation as well though but the context and the references to priesthood and tabernacle earlier in the passage makes it clear, at least to anyone diligently studying, that covenant is not the best interpretation for the context. In any case, most translations are very upfront about this by the way most either italicize or put supplied words in brackets or asterisks to indicate their modification and they typically include footnotes describing what how and why they arrived at the translation decision made for any given instances of textual variance. The author of Hebrews is not contradicting the rest of Scripture. The passage in chapter 8 describes the insufficiency of the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood in contrast to the perfection of the Eternal Priesthood of Messiah and how only His Priestly work accomplishes true atonement for the remission of sin. By the way those were not examples of “contradictions” you mentioned, they are contrasting statements that are clearly defined as either true and correct or false and/or lies. Such as when the text clearly tells us someone lied or bore false testimony, those aren’t contradictions. The Scriptures have 0 contradictions. It is true most people are too lazy to diligently examine the Scriptures, such as people who are quick to disregard whole passages and even books of the inspired Word of God just because they don’t take the time to see if a perceived discrepancy is even present in the original language.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
What about the fact that Paul, in Acts sacrifices for his vow? Isn’t that the two temples in operation at the same time?
And Paul is not keeping a vow just so he can look like a Jew in order to reach the Jews.
The intention is to make sure the unbelieving Jews see that he IS FAITHFUL TO TORAH.
@ShaulTzuar
2 days ago
What about the fact that Paul, in Acts sacrifices for his vow? Isn’t that the two temples in operation at the same time?
And Paul is not keeping a vow just so he can look like a Jew in order to reach the Jews.
The intention is to make sure the unbelieving Jews see that he IS FAITHFUL TO TORAH.
*Well, the intention was to hide that he was teaching different doctrine from what James and the Elders of the church in Jerusalem were teaching. Notice, the same Jews in question accusing Paul had no stated beef with James and the Elders. Where was Paul’s claim “For the law is not for a righteous man” in 1Tim 1:9, “We are not under the law, but under grace” in Romans 6:14, the whole ifelection is by works, then grace is no more grace ordeal in Romans 11:6 or the whole push against circumcision making you a debtor to do the whole law and Christ profiting you nothing in Galatians 5:2-3? Paul was circumcised according to the book of Phillipeans. By Paul’s own standard in Galatians 5:2-3 Christ profits him nothing.
And Paul appears to have slipped under James radar until all hell broke loose in Acts 21 a few verses later. Apparently, James eventually started going through Paul’s writings to figure out what happened, and realized that paul was teaching a different doctrine of justification than what James teachs. Because James 2:17 accuses Romans 4:5 to be a doctrine of dead faith, if Paul is pushing faith without works. The same would be the case for Ephesians 2:8-9. What James should have read was 2Corinthians 12:7. Just one chapter after telling us to not marvel that Satan’s ministers are transformed into ministers of righteousness, Paul states that he has a “messenger of Satan” in 2Cor 12:7. Then he proceeds to mention he can’t get rid of this thorn in his flesh, and God wouldn’t take it away either, leading to the convenient excuse that God’s grace was sufficient for Paul! Yeah right! If grace leaves a person high and dry like that, then how well will grace work when it comes to our salvation in Ephesians 2:8-9??? And if Paul was a true apostle, didn’t he know christ gave his true apostles power over all devils in Luke 9:1, not merely a few? Paul should have had no difficulty getting rid of the “messenger of Satan” unless he was lying about being an apostle.
And what about when Paul, after his supposed conversion away from rabbid Phariseeism to become a follower of christ, blurts out in Acts 23:6 that he is still quite the Pharisee? Not only did he bring his supposed conversion to Christianity into serious question with that stunt, but he also brought the entire body of his doctrine under christ’s warning in Matthew 16 to beware the doctrine of the Pharisees. Christ didn’t really care much for the Pharisees and their doctrines, warning us that if our righteousness is not above that of the Scribes and Pharisees we will in no wise enter the kingdom of God in Matthew 5:20. This has always caused me to wonder how Paul would get his “messenger of Satan” in 2cor 12:7 into the kingdom given Christ’s requirement there. Then christ warns us that pharisees like Paul make their procelites twice the child of hell than themselves in Matthew 23:15.
@@coreybray9834 your assume too much. I don’t think Paul was a hypocrite in acts but you seem to.
@@coreybray9834 Pharisees is not a bad word. There were good and believing Pharisees. Again your assumptions are not born out by a historical grammatical understanding of first century life.
@@ShaulTzuar
@ShaulTzuar
4 days ago
@coreybray9834 your assume too much. I don’t think Paul was a hypocrite in acts but you seem to.
*I didn’t twist Paul’s arm and make him admit he was still a Pharisee; thus, calling his so called conversion to Christianity into question. He could have said he was a Christian there instead, right or right???
Paul’s admission there also brought the entire body of his doctrine under Christ’s warning in Matthew 16 to beware the doctrine of the Pharisees. Christ wouldn’t warn us about that, if it were not important, you know! I find Christ’s warnings really bother a lot of Paul faithful though. It’s aninconvenience they don’t want to deal with. But, when my Savior tells me to beware someone’s doctrine, I do assume a lot that Christ knows better than me how dangerous that person and their doctrine is to my spiritual well being. You might not take Christ’s warnings so seriously though, and that is certainly your choice. But, I find Christ is always right about these sorts of things. What is funny is that I always find myself defending the words of Christ when I am dealing with those who sympathize with Paul. It is as if Christ’s words just don’t resonate with these people quite like Paul’s words do. But, John 10 and Revelation 14 suggest to me that those who actually make it don’t follow Paul wheresoever he goes, but follow Christ instead.
@@ShaulTzuar
@ShaulTzuar
4 days ago
@coreybray9834 Pharisees is not a bad word.
*It’s not exactly a good word either, if Christ spends an entire chapter in Matthew 23 chewing them out up one side and down the other.*
There were good and believing Pharisees.
*You seem to think so. But, you are doing nothing to demonstrate that is the case here. And yet, Christ still concludes that unless your righteousness is above that of the Scribes and Pharisees you will in no wise enter the kingdom of God in Matthew 5:20. For Christ to make a blanket statement like that about Pharisees suggests the upper limit of their goodness is still not good enough in Christ’s eyes. Maybe you missed the reality of that implication in his logic there in your haste??? It implies that a Pharisee can’t remain a Pharisee and enter his kingdom by definition, because the righteousness of a Pharisee by definition is not good enough to enter his kingdom.
I do, however, find it curious you are trying to explain to me here why Christ has them all wrong, but Christ came back in Matthew 23:13 and reminded them that they were failing to enter his kingdom and failing to suffer others to enter in. I would imagine, judging by Christ’s many concerns about Pharisees, if there were any he would certify as being “good”, it was because they were converting away from the foundational teachings of Phariseeism after hearing the complaints Christ raised against them.*
Again your assumptions are not born out by a historical grammatical understanding of first century life.
*I think they call that a claim without supporting evidence you are employing there.
Cheers!
There must be something in the spiritual ether, because everyone is talking about this topic just a month after one of our elders split and started his own congregation because he decided that he couldn't associate with people who believed that any animal sacrifices could ever be legitimately reinstituted. Now at least four different pronomian ministries have published articles and videos with serious discussions of the topic within the last couple of weeks.
Great conversation, by the way!
Thank you for asking to have this conversation. I believe it will help a lot of people.
That word change means transfer. Transfer of the priesthood.
Christ is going to be high priest forever. Isiah 66 new priest and levites are selected in kingdom.
Hebrews absolutely describes two distinct priesthoods in operation simultaneously. The earthly Levitical order in the temporal and the heavenly in the “spiritual” eternal “realm” of you will.
Matthew 26:28 "for this is My blood of the covenant [Jeremiah 31:32], which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (NASB)
Hebrews 10:18 Now where there is forgiveness of these things, an offering for sin is no longer. (NASB)
The reason many “Torah observant” people concede that Hebrews supposedly implies the earthly sacrificial system is abolished is NOT because that’s just what it says, it’s because they ALSO don’t understand it. It’s not exactly an easy to grasp, super clear explicit book. People insist on interpreting the Scripture from Hebrews instead of interpreting Hebrews from the rest of Scripture. How can we justify reinterpreting clear explicit passages spoken by Christ Himself based on misguided assumptions drawn from vague passages in Hebrews?
HEBREW ROOTS IS GROWING ❤DONT CRY 😢😢
Torah Resource straw man’s Hebrew Roots and hates it unfortunately
The discussion on temporal atonement was great! Thanks guys. One question: how would you deal with Hebrews 10 in regards to discipline, judgment, etc.? It seems to speak about new covenant believers here.
Hebrews 10:26-31
26 ¶ For if *we* sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the *blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified,* an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, *The Lord shall judge his people.*
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Well, Paul easily breaks Solberg’s delimma in Galatians 5:2-3. Solberg is not anticipating that those who are circumcised are debtors to do the whole law. And since Paul admits in Phillipeans that he was circumcised on the eighth day, a Hebrew of the Hebrews, Paul would then be obligated to do the whole law, and also Timothy who Paul circumcised in Acts 16:1-3 shortly after the Jerusalem council. However, Gentile converts who were not circumcised would seem to fall under the Acts 15 crowd. So, if Acts 15 and Galatians 5:2-3 are used as the basis of addressing Solberg’s delimma, then you cannot give a definite yes or no answer that universally addresses the cases of all Christians, because on that basis some ar circumcised and others are not. Consequently,their obligations to the law are different as a result of that being the case.
However, by the time we reach Ezekiel 44 and we see god gets upset at the strangers/Gentiles among the Jews who are polluting his sanctuary because they are not circumcised in heart and in flesh as god requires there, they will not be allowed in the restored Davidic temple until they meet that torah based condition of being circumcised in heart and flesh. But, meeting that condition will by necessity bring them to a point where they are debtors to do the whole law too. So, the greater question we should be asking is were the Strangers/Gentiles supposed to be circumcised? If we read Isaiah 56, then the answer would be a resounding yes if they choose the things God delights in by embracing his Sabbath an Covenant. Note, Strangers in Isaiah 56 are not Jews, but they are Gentiles coming into the faith who are offered a name better than sons and daughters in God’s house if they embrace his Sabbath and Covenant. This was the essence of the true gospel to the Gentiles, and the last four verses of Isaiah 56 explains how the leaders and shepherds of god’s people drug his people in the wrong direction, robbing them of this offer God was making, creating the later problem in Ezekiel 44 in the process by the time these Strangers find themselves mingled among the Israelites in the restored Davidic kingdom.
So, why was the sacrificial system stopped, but will later be restarted and the levites returned under their salt covenant to their priestly duties??? There is a simple answer to this question too that Solberg is clearly not well versed in. When Lucifer faced off with Christ at the cross, and lost the engagement, Christ showed up after the fact in Revelation 5 and a New Song declaring is worthiness was sung in his honor. For the first time, the question of who is worthy asked by the strong angel, likely Lucifer, at the beginning of Revelation 5 was resolved. Christ was worthy, but Christ is only one member of the Godhead. But, his being worthy opened the door for him to become a High Priest on our behalf in the Heavenly Sanctuary to handle the delicate matters of addressing man’s sin problem.
Since Lucifer could no longer call the character of Christ as our High Priest into question, God should have saved the righteous after the cross and destroyed Lucifer and the wicked. Unfortunately, Christ’s character being cleared did not clear the other two members of the Godhead. But, his blood in Revelation 12 still was able to protect us from Lucifer who is here identified as the “Accuser of the Brethren”. So, Lucifer argued that Christ might be righteous as far as being able to faithfully keep God’s law was concerned, but how do we prove that the law is itself righteous. And this is the question the Father’s character would have to endure, being he is our lawgiver.
While God’s law is in question, instead of saving the righteous and immediately plaguing the earth, God suspends the sacrificial system, destroyed the earthly temple and ever since that point god has put it to Lucifer to demonstrate that he could come up with a better law. And Lucifer brought in his buddy the little horn of Daniel 7:25 whose job it was to change times and laws and who would make war with the saints during the time, times and half a time (or 42-months) or 1260-years prophecy from 538 to 1798 when the papacy (the little horn) stood up as the Pontifex Maximus (Supreme priest of the Babylonian religion) and changed god’s times and laws: changing the Sabbath to Sunday, replacing Levitical feasts with secular feasts, disrupting the daily ministration of Daniel 8, Joel 1, Ezekiel 7 and so on. The result of changing times and laws in Revelation 13:4 was that the world started worshipping Lucifer the Dragon and the beast whose little horn tried to impersonate the intercessory role of christ under the Sacrament of Reconciliation. But, this lead to God’s people being warn out in the war that follows from Daniel 7:25 and Revelation 13:5-8.
Christ concluded well in advance that if these days were not cut short, no flesh would be saved in Mathew 24, and so the 1260-days prophecy came to an end in 1798 with the arresting of the Pope and collapse of the Roman empire. Shortly afterwards the Sanctuary was ready to be cleansed in 1844 in line with Daniel 8:14 and the return of the daily meat and drink offering in Joel 2,and various Christian groups started slowly returning to the true Sabbath and Levitical feasts and realizing they don’t need a human intercessor because Christ is the only mediator between god and man, undoing the damage the little horn introduced to God’s times and laws.
Eventually, God’s law will be fully vindicated, and the law will go forth from zion again in Isaiah 2:1-5 and Micah 4:1-5. God will rebuke the nations, and they will convert their weapons into farming tools and not learn war anymore, proving conclusively that God’s law in tact leads to a far better outcome for our planet than Lucifer’s plan of changing God’s times and laws via the little horn. By this point, the Father’s character will be vindicated, which has to do with the death of the two prophets of Revelation 11 who are killed, resurrected and ascend to heaven just like Christ did back at the crucifixion. Christ’s death ended the first era and his character being tested, and the death, resurrection and ascention of the two prophets of Revelation 11 will vindicate both the words of Christ and the words and character of the Father to end the second era of prophecy. With the law finally vindicated, there is nothing to hold back God’s hand to pour out his plagues. And when christ comes, he will rebuild the temple and resume the sacrificial system, restore the priests even in New Testament prophecies like Revelation 3:12, Revelation 7 and Revelation 20:4-6.
So, who are the two prophets of Revelation 11 exactly? Revelation might actually hand us the answer to this question in Revelation 15. Remember, those who get the victory over the beast and its image and such sing the song of Moses and the Lamb (Christ). And those who know the Messianic prophecy of Deuteronomy 18 will know that Moses and Christ are the two prophets discussed there as well. This might explain why god’s people in Revelation 12:17 and 14:12 keep the commandments (that which is found in the writings of Moses) and the testimony and faith of Christ (the Lamb of God). Plus, Moses symbolically represents the Father and the Lamb symbolically represents Christ as types.
Maybe one of the biggest mistakes people make regarding the tabernacle and a place for God to dwell, then having that transfer to themselves is, they then presume God is dwelling in them despite all their uncleanness. Something like: “we’ll, before it was wrong to kill a pig in the tabernacle, but now I can eat a pig and god is still dwelling in me.”
I think they’ve made a huge error in presupposing God is dwelling in them
Acts 15 states, in summary, in order to be saved, abstain from the pollution of idols
Edit: after listening to the entire video, that is exactly what he did, he quoted from the letter writer and blanketed everyone under that “you are the temple” as if he was the recipient of the letter.
1:08:55 Andrew makes a good point here. I am pronomian, and I agree. My issue is, and so what?? Yes. Jesus' sacrifice does remove all sin entirely, nobody disagrees with that and it always has. The issue is what in the text says "therefore, you should not offer sacrifices at all"? I'm guessing he will point to chapter 7, verse 18, but that was not made as a conclusion to the point, that was raised in explaining the nature of Christ's atonement. So where's the "hah, gotcha!"? I feel like I'm supposed to get it from that point, but I just don't.
Galatians 3:13…Messiah redeemed us from the CURSE of the Law. ( which is DEATH )..He became the CURSE for us…His sacrifice conquered DEATH something NO animal sacrifice could do..He conquered DEATH so we could be resurrected…but YHVH does not lie ….the CURSE of death awaits those who practice
LAWLESSNESS..some will go from death to death because the MESSIAH can only be crucified ONCE..
Got Torah Got Truth
Great video! I was really hoping to hear the most simple reason for believing in a future sacrifice, that is that GOD himself enjoys them. That's the first thing I pick up on when I read the bible for myself. It was also clear he was upset about not getting them brought brought by a pure hart, that's why he told them to stop not because he hates sacrifices but because he hated the way they treated and twisted his sacrifices. That to me was a major theme in the overall narrative. Anyways great stuff! It really uncovers how hard you have to flip and jump around to come to the "modern" understanding
On the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, David asks God not to remove the Holy Spirit from him in the Psalms. I doubt it's a different Holy Spirit. My bigger contention is that Peter says we should obey God rather than men, and then goes on to say that God gives the Holy Spirit to those that obey Him. This cut the Pharisees to the heart, as it would most Christians if they actually believed what the Word says.
On the sacrifices in the temple; these were never meant to save, but to allow the people to draw near to their God. God doesn't delight in the blood of bulls and goats. He prefers obedience rather than sacrifice. He wants us to obey out of love rather than relying solely on His sinless sacrifice. Jesus said that if we love Him, we will keep His commands. Didn't the same One that said do not murder also say Remember the Sabbath and do not eat swine? Everybody loves to quote:
Romans 3:23
[23]For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
But fail to read on.
Romans 3:24-26
[24]Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
[25]Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
[26]To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Verse 25 says "for the remission of sins that are past." Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more.
The sacrifice for sin has been paid once and for all, but that doesn't give us a blank check. We can't practice sin and charge it to Jesus' tab.
@AProdigalSonReturned
1 day ago
On the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, David asks God not to remove the Holy Spirit from him in the Psalms. I doubt it's a different Holy Spirit. My bigger contention is that Peter says we should obey God rather than men, and then goes on to say that God gives the Holy Spirit to those that obey Him. This cut the Pharisees to the heart, as it would most Christians if they actually believed what the Word says.
*But, if we believe what the word says, and Christ warns us to beware the doctrine of Pharisees in Matthew 16, then what should we do when Paul blurts out in Acts 23:6 that he is a Pharisee? Should we turn a blind eye to his doctrine and give him a free pass as millions of Christians constantly do, or should we take Christ’s warnings about Pharisees far more seriously and bring the entire body of Paul’s doctrine under the intended scrutiny of christ’s warning back in Matthew 16? I’m for the latter option myself, because I think that old Pharisee needs to be more effectively scrutinized. I mean, just one chapter after paul warns us to not marvel that Satan’s ministers are transformed into ministers of righteousness in 2Cor 11, Paul then comes back in 2Cor 12:7 and admits he is the one who has a “messenger of Satan”. I’m shocked Christians let that slip under their radar. But, just between you and I, I think most Christians today would rather worship Lucifer anyway. and it shows, why else would god have to call his people out of Babylon in Revelation 18:4, if they happily follow a man with a messenger of Satan who continues to call himself a Pharisee. Why didn’t he call himself a Christian there instead? Didn’t Christ warn that Pharisees like Paul in Matthew 23:15 make their procelites twice the child of hell than themselves, or are we to not believe the word and trust instead that christ is notwell studied in where Pharisees are coming from? What about in John 8:44 when he says they are of their father the devil. Maybe that is the real reason why Paul in 2cor 12:7 is not ashamed to admit he has a messenger of Satan. But, I’ve always wondered that if he is continuing to insist he is a Pharisee, then how is he going to meet Christ’s condition in Matthew 5:20 to make it into the kingdom of God? And wil they let him in with his messenger of Satan? Just a few thoughts for the road…But, just between you and me, I much prefer following the Good Shepherd of John 10. I don’t see him with a messenger of Satan, but instead he seems to understand that Satan is the enemy, not an influence to allow himself or his message to be compromised by when push comes to shove.*
On the sacrifices in the temple; these were never meant to save, but to allow the people to draw near to their God. God doesn't delight in the blood of bulls and goats. He prefers obedience rather than sacrifice.
*And that makes sense, because God gave a mercy clause in the law, and the conditions for obtaining his mercy in Exodus 20:6 was not sacrificing. It was loving God and keeping his commandments which means a sinner would have to repent to meet those conditions. Interestingly, christ then comes along in Matthew 9:13 and offers the same deal of mercy and NOT SACRIFICE to those who heed his call to repentance. But, if Christ can extend mercy to those who repent, what did he need to go to the cross for???*
He wants us to obey out of love rather than relying solely on His sinless sacrifice.
*But, this really doesn’t explain why god needs a sacrifice in the first place. Tell me god is better than these pagan deities who need the pure blood of virgins to satisfy and appease their wrath! Because the way this usually goes, god ends up looking no better. In fact, god ends up looking like a rather heartless, merciless being the way most people try to describe it.*
Jesus said that if we love Him, we will keep His commands.
*that idea there fits more with the mercy clause of Exodus 20:6. But, then if mercy is obtained by showing God we love him by keeping is commandments, what does christ need to die for if God is clearly capable of mercy through alternative means???*
Didn't the same One that said do not murder also say Remember the Sabbath and do not eat swine? Everybody loves to quote:
*Yeah, but Paul gets in the way here in romans 7 and makes the excuse that he would like to obey, but he is essentially forced to disobey God, claiming, “Not I, but sin in me.” It makes me cringe thinking a child will read that and be clever enough to use what paul says to take their parents for a real ride. “Gee Mom and Dad, I want to obey you and I do obey you with my mind, but in my flesh dwells no good thing. So, the disobedience I do I willed not, so I conclude it is not I, but sin in me that causes the disobedience. And that is just the way it is, live with it. I have to, I don’t have a choice, being sold under sin!” I am shocked people let Paul get away with Romans 7also. It’s like telling God that if he wants obedience out of us, he is going to have to predestine us, because we are helpless. Is it then any wonder that paul starts heavily talking about predestination and election theology just two chapters later in romans 9??? It’s enough to make me ask, “Why then does Paul think we need to discuss love or faith if we have no will to engage God on such a high level of moral agency and god is just fitting vessels for destruction and glory by election instead??? I always get a kick how he snaps at his reader in Romans 9 as he anticipates that his reader knows he is walking himself into a corner he has no real experience knowing how to properly address and never honestly resolves.*
Romans 3:23
[23]For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
*sure, that is why god created repentance. But, why did he create sacrificing?*
You continue: But fail to read on.
Romans 3:24-26
[24]Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
*Oh, the famed free gift of grace, you mean a gift with no obligatory strings attached? Then obedience is not required, else the gift of grace is not truly a free gift at all. And that is why Paul offers that we are saved by grace and not of works in Ephesians 2:8-9, removing any obligatory obedience which was formerly required in the mercy clause of Exodus 20:6 and Matthew 9:13. It’s curious, however, because James didn’t teach that we were justified freely in James 2. He concludes that faith without works is both dead and imperfect faith. But, the real shocker is that while Paul was teaching the church of ephesus that they were saved by grace through faith and not of works in Ephesians 2:8-9, Christ comes back in Revelation 2 in his message to the church of Ephesus and warns them explicitly to repent and do the first works, else he will remove their candle. That’s pretty much the opposite of what Paul was teaching, but let’s make that our little secret. We don’t want it getting out that the Ephesians rejected Paul, and Christ praises them in Revelation 2 for trying those who say they are apostles and are not, but are found to be liars. Was that christ’s way of again exposing that Paul is a serious problem and Christians need to join the church of Ephesus in waking up about Paul? Actually, Paul admits to Timothy that all of Asia had departed from him, so it wasn’t just the church of Ephesus who eventually rejected Paul. Paul’s problems seem to have gotten worse after the events of Acts 21. I always wondered if things would have turned out better for Paul if he had heeded the warning of those speaking by the Holy spirit in Acts 21, telling him to not go up to Jerusalem.*
[25]Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
*Why, when God could bypass the sacrifice of christ and simply forgive a sinner who repents as he promised? Christ said mercy and NOT SACRIFICE, not mercy demands a sacrifice in Matthew 9:13.*
[26]To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Verse 25 says "for the remission of sins that are past." Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more.
*And christ said that with confidence like he fully expected she could do it too. that is very different from Paul’s lazy attitude in romans 7 though, because Paul is sure that is impossible: insisting he is sold under sin and that sin in him is taking over preventing him from ever being able to comply with such a directive of Christ.*
The sacrifice for sin has been paid once and for all, but that doesn't give us a blank check.
*Says who? If all sins I would ever think to commit are already paid for before I commit them, it’s not like Christ can go back to his Father and get a refund after already being punished as my Substitute to license me as being righteous for sinning up a storm in advance back on the cross. Just saying I don’t have a blank check out of a need to mitigate the impact of the view you are holding because you have some idea how dangerous what you ar suggesting above truly is doesn’t mean you are out of the woods here either. This idea of paying for sins comes with a lot of other dangerous ideas you are not accounting for here. But, the idea you are really overlooking is that if Christ pays in advance, our sins had to be transferred to his account from our account whether he pays for them or not. So, if they are not held to my account, what would God charge me with seeing my account is empty of all sin that was already transferred?
And if christ paid for our sins in advance back at the cross, why are Christians still dying off as if to say the sin is still attached to them, and was never actually dealt with? The whole point of a Substitute being judged and punished in our place and dying for our sins is so we don’t have to die for them ourselves; hence the term, Substitute! But, the way Substitutionalists apply that term is very assert and deny with sleight of hand in their application as they cross their fingers and hope no one notices how the scam works. And how long is God supposed to act like he didn’t know he got paid off? 2-Days, 2-months, 2-years, or 2,000-years? If god was paid up in full by christ, death and dying on our planet should have ceased the moment Christ appeared before his Father and his sacrifice was accepted. One would think Revelation 5 would be a good indication that God accepted it long ago, but he keeps letting us die off because maybe he likes watching us squirm and suffer for squirts and giggles? Or, is it here that the scam theology of paying for sins by a Substitute really starts to fall to pieces for the fraud it was always intent on being???*
We can't practice sin and charge it to Jesus' tab.
*But, if you admit that, then Christ can’t pay for your sins. Any sin you commit is practicing sin, but the problem is that sin transfer itself is morally wrong. God cannot be a party to falsely charging christ with your sins. It would destroy his righteous reputation as a judge to have his hands anywhere near that kind of mess. A righteous court must honestly establish the guilt of the one on trial for punishment to validly follow, not make fraudulent false charges and pretend they will stick. Then to add insult to injury by being a party to the murder of his falsely accused Son in cold blood would never work. It destroys the whole premise of Substitutionary Atonement Theology which claims that God cares about justice and satisfying the demands of justice. But, when would justice ever demand that we falsely charge the innocent and then murder the falsely charged in cold blood? Justice would never demand such nonsense. So, we need a far better explanation of why Christ went to the cross and the need for the broader sacrificial system, because the concept of atoning for sins is a bit more complex than it seems on the surface.
@@coreybray9834 I'm going to tackle one post at a time, and try to do it methodically. Christ warns us to beware the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees, but what He didn't say is that all Pharisees hold to that false doctrine. There were believing Pharisees that obeyed God rather than men, and Paul was one of them. Yes we should do as the bereans do, and search the scriptures to see if what Paul says is true. Everytime I have done this, he proves true. Would you say that Job is a messenger of satan, or that he was acted upon by satan? In the verse you gave, Paul is explaining that he is having health problems because God is allowing a messenger of satan to keep him in check.
2 Corinthians 12:7-10
[7]And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
[8]For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me.
[9]And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
[10]Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
Paul didn't have the false doctrine of the Pharisees. He was a Pharisee because he believed in the resurrection of the dead. He worshipped in accordance with scripture, as witnessed in this passage:
Acts 24:9-15
[9]And the Jews also assented, saying that these things were so.
[10]Then Paul, after that the governor had beckoned unto him to speak, answered, Forasmuch as I know that thou hast been of many years a judge unto this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself:
[11]Because that thou mayest understand, that there are yet but twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem for to worship.
[12]And they neither found me in the temple disputing with any man, neither raising up the people, neither in the synagogues, nor in the city:
[13]Neither can they prove the things whereof they now accuse me.
[14]But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
[15]And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
Brother, I mean no offense, but you are going all over the NT to apply anything said about Pharisees to Paul. Jesus wasn't against the Pharisees just because they were Pharisees, it was because many of them had strayed from God's Word. Paul was definitely one that had strayed in the beginning, as he personally persecuted believers. He did not remain in that false doctrine though. As in John 8, Jesus said their father was the devil because they were doing the deeds of the devil. As for Matthew 5:20, I think Paul accomplished that as he said that he worships God in a way that (the majority of) the Pharisees called heresy. He had stopped adding to or taking away from the law. If you have the christian presupposition that Paul is saying the law is done away with, then Peter's warning is in vain. Peter tells us Paul is difficult to understand, and people twist Paul's words to their own destruction. People who refuse to study the OT thoroughly will be confused by Paul often. People who live by addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division will be confused when a mathematician starts throwing out algebraic equations.
I agree that the Good Shepherd is the one we should follow. I also believe that Paul doesn't deviate from following Christ. Paul wasn't giving some new pieces of the puzzle, but he did help us find some of the locations where those original pieces fit in. One of the many reasons that Christ had to die was to redeem the House of Israel. Follow this thought: (Deut. 24) the law of the husband, (Jer. 3) divorce of the House of Israel, (Romans 7) how we can return to the first husband; then read Hosea (the overview). I will continue in a reply to my own post.
I'm going to talk about your next three sections in this comment. You were asking about why Christ had to go to the cross for our sin. Brother, God is a God of Justice. When we sin, we cannot turn back time and undo those sins. Even repentance falls short because that will not undo the damage our choices cause. When we repent, we are trying to turn away from what we have done in the past and get back on that narrow path. Repentance doesn't remove sin. Jesus offers mercy in this way: to take on our punishment for what we righteously deserve, if we come to Him and love Him. God isn't asking for a pure human virgin sacrifice; He is asking for absolute obedience. We fall short of this standard because our flesh wars against our spirit. When someone cuts me off in traffic, I am hard pressed not to lash out with hate. Not because I hate that person, but because my flesh reacts to the imminent danger and possibility of harm. When I bring my flesh into submission, I pray for the person. Perhaps they had a reason that I am unaware of, to do what they did. Since we fall short and cannot remove our own sin, God requires punishment because of justice. Other religions end up with virgin sacrifice because they are trying to counterfeit and pervert God's plans. There is no sacrifice that we could bring to appease God's righteous judgement. None. But because God is also the God of Mercy, His physical nature put on flesh and gave Himself in our place. There is no greater love than this, that a man lay down His life for His friends. I capitalize "His" because that is exactly what He did for us. We didn't offer Him up, He offered Himself up. This is where people go wrong with penal substitution. God never said kill a man in your place, but He has said that He lays down His own life in our place. Perhaps not in those exact words, but the jist is all over scripture. From Genesis to Revelation, the lamb that takes away the sin of the world is there. God doesn't need a sacrifice (He could just throw us into the pit because that would be justice). We need His sacrifice. God wants us to rely on Him alone, not any other gods with their false promises. Through Jesus, God offers mercy. That offer comes with terms, though. We are supposed to walk as He walked. When I said Jesus doesn't offer a blank check, I meant that we can't walk in sin constantly while saying Jesus paid the price. The price has been paid, but we will still stand trial. Our sin hasn't been removed as far as the east is from the west just yet. The Word says we will be judged, and that God will account for even every idle word we have spoken. Christ is our mediator so that when we are found guilty, He can offer up His own blood as our ransom.
Isaiah 45:17-25
[17]But Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end.
[18]For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.
[19]I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.
[20]Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save.
[21]Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.
[22]Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
[23]I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
[24]Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.
[25]In the LORD shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.
He is our Saviour in Christ, and every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is LORD. There are so many verses that I could quote about God's justice, judgement, and punishment; but also about His love, mercy, and faithfulness. No sin is allowed into the Kingdom. If you look at the majority of what Paul says, his message is this: there is no amount of keeping God's law that can erase even the tiniest amount of sin. Therefore, we need Christ's blood to remove our sin and thank God that Jesus did what He did for us. Otherwise, we would all be going to destruction. Paul doesn't teach that we therefore don't have to keep God's law, but that we cannot save ourselves through it. When he is talking about sin dwelling in his flesh, he is repeating in different ways that our sinful flesh kind of has a mind of it's own. When we touch something really hot accidentally, our flesh reacts before we can use reason. If anyone has ever been addicted to any substances, it becomes very clear in that. While we may want to abstain, our flesh wants to partake to the point of sickness when we refuse. Paul wants us to overcome, and was not giving people an excuse; but rather an understanding of how our flesh wars against our spirit. None of us can live perfectly, but we should strive to. There is a huge difference in making a mistake, and practicing sin. I make mistakes, but I don't excuse them or plan to do them again.
1 John 2:1-6
[1]My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
[2]And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
[3]And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
[4]He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
[5]But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
[6]He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
I think I addressed most of your comments. I didn't do it to prove you wrong, but to give my perspective. I hope you could understand everything I was trying to say. Paul isn't my savior. Yah alone is my Salvation by Yeshua.
@@aProdigalSonReturned
@AProdigalSonReturned
22 hours ago
@coreybray9834 I'm going to tackle one post at a time, and try to do it methodically. Christ warns us to beware the DOCTRINE of the Pharisees, but what He didn't say is that all Pharisees hold to that false doctrine.
*Okay, so how many Pharisees did he say had exceptional doctrine, because if we move beyond his warning to beware their doctrine in Matthew 16, beyond his warning that they were the ones plotting to murder him in Matthew 21, we finally reach Matthew 23 where he spends an entire chapter chewing them out up one side and down the other as if he is completely disgusted with what they had become. To say the majority of their doctrinal positions rubbed Christ the wrong way would be the understatement of the century. And while you might be able to find a Pharisee or two that didn’t fit the typical Pharisee mold, say Nicodemus, for example, who seemed to be more open minded, it would be difficult at best to claim that is the case concerning Paul. By his own admission he was a strong contributor to their murderous streak.
Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.
And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.
As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.
Acts 22:1-5
Now, I know everyone wants to feel great pity for Paul. But, here is a man admitting openly that he was party to the persecution and murder of not merely one believer in Christ, but many! It turns out the perfect law of the fathers Paul is speaking of above actually teaches against shedding innocent blood more than once. I’ve often wondered if people would be so happy to jump to Paul’s defense if it was one or more of their family members paul was instrumental in murdering? Because it bothers me a bit that Paul wants sympathy for doing all of that, but then Paul turns around and rakes Peter over the coals in Galatians 2 over something a million times less grievous, if what Peter did was even worthy of mention at all.
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.
For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
Galatians 2:11-12
Yes, because it was dangerous to give those like Paul of the circumcision any unnecessary cause to want to hurl stones in your general direction. How quickly Paul forgets his own past deadly indiscretions. But, have you ever asked yourself why Paul was so quick to circumcise Timothy?
Then came he to Derbe and Lystra: and, behold, a certain disciple was there, named Timotheus, the son of a certain woman, which was a Jewess, and believed; but his father was a Greek:
Which was well reported of by the brethren that were at Lystra and Iconium.
Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Acts 16:1-3
So what, what was paul so afraid of? Like Peter back in the incident in Galatians 2, Paul knew exactly how circumcised Scribes and Pharisees like Paul could be when they found you in the company of uncircumcised Gentiles even those who were only part Greek. So, the Paul faithful will turn a blind eye to whatever Paul does, but the problem is that paul would not turn the same blind eye to what Peter was doing, and was sure Peter needed to be blamed. This is the central tenant of hipocrisy that Christ complained about so much when it came to Pharisees like Paul using the words.
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
Matthew 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25 etc., etc., etc.*
I think what people miss is that God commanded us to do these sacrifices and offerings. There’s 2 views on this, either you’re doing these to check this block because God said so, or you’re doing these because you love God and want to obey him and do whatever he wants.. it’s a heart issue.. either your heart is in it or not..those in Isaiah, in the passage that basically lambasts them and their sacrifice and offerings mean nothing to God, their hearts weren’t in it, and God knew it. I think RL has misunderstood that. The sacrifice itself does nothing, but the faith in God is everything.
Does the below sounds like Paul thought Jesus did away with the earthly priesthood.? No past tense used but present tense
Heb 8:4-5 TS2009 4 For if indeed He were on earth, He would not be a priest, since there are priests who offer the gifts according to the Torah, 5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly, as Mosheh was warned when he was about to make the Tent. For He said, “See that you make all according to the pattern shown you on the mountain.” Exo. 25:40.
Wouldn't God striking Ananias and Sapphira dead for lying be a physical/temporal discipline for sin?
“Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is freed from everything from which you could not be freed by the law of Moses. Beware, therefore, lest what is said in the Prophets should come about: “‘Look, you scoffers, be astounded and perish; for I am doing a work in your days, a work that you will not believe, even if one tells it to you.’””
Acts 13:38-41 ESV
This I do know in the world to come fear God or die young.
Mr. Schumacher is 1000% a great example of a God fearing, Christian apologist, believer in general. Willing to have a genuinely serious and deep discussion about disagreements, as willing to learn and be corrected as much as correcting and teaching others. God bless both of you always. Great stuff as always Caleb.
Which means guys Jesus then me the greatest to ever live.
Hebrews is specifically about what Yeshua change on the cross. Even more accurate would be to say; Messiah took back the high priest hood. the story of Satan fit such a theme. God taking back His thrown. The High Priesthood is His and belongs to Him and seems to be the only book anywhere. To explicitly state what has been done with the sacrifice of Christ in details. To openly state the normal operating parameters and how the cross changed them. Hence the book of Hebrews, specific change noted to amendment the Torah. My thoughts.
The holy Spirit is given to the one who completes the process of the fear of God and the last person who had it was John and 2 thousand years later me.
Hmm 32:22 question;
No...at least, I've never enountered any passages in the tanakh where an intentional sin offering was done....Only the NT alone would bend the tanakh to promote christianity as seen in Hebrews 9:22, chap.10...
“ there is no longer any sacrifice sin “ if you’re going to keep on sinning, the ROCK ( MESSIAH ) can only be STRUCK ONCE..Got Torah Got Truth
The world doesn't realize that they are dealing with the one who God makes a little lower than the angels. A human who God makes a light which means on earth and heaven I'm a big deal.
Hebrews 8:4..Now if HE ( MESSIAH ) were here ON EARTH, He would NOT be a priest at ALL…since there are those who offer the gifts ACCORDING to the LAW…Got Torah Got Truth
The disciples ask Jesus who sinned the boy or his parents that he was born blind Jesus neither the boy or parents sinned he blind so that the glory of God can be shown through him. The boy was not physically blind he blinded of who is and guys I figured out your looking at God elect One the king of the world.
It would seem that the disconnect does ultimately come down to a difference in how one reckons salvation/justification. I would suggest that the concept is being thought of in a temporal/time sense. An overwhelming majority of people (myself included for a long time) view the situation of the people living in a pre-Crucifixion “era” as that of a people living without an accomplished eternal sacrifice temporarily applying bandaid solutions to their sin problem all the way until Messiah came and effected their redemption. While scripture tells of a reality that is not time bound in which people with an accomplished eternal atonement, applied to them via faith in the coming Promise, dealing with the very real temporal consequences of living in a still fallen world with still imperfect bodies, which is very much the state of people living even today, with the only minor difference being we, in a sense, look forward whilst they looked back. In that time innocent animals paid and were affected by the sins of people.Today “innocents” very much still pay for our mess ups, the only real difference is we don’t get to deal with the matter in a God prescribed manner. “innocents” are affected by the consequences of our sins and more pain and/or death results. There essentially isn’t much of a difference between a faithful believer pre-Crucifixion in terms of the historical event and one after. Idk just my two cents.
1:15:40 - ugh! smh -Heavenly High Priesthood of Yeshua" - Tim Hegg.
Let me tell you what's happening here . I have completed the process of the fear of God and I have endured the holys*** curses that is placed upon the one who walks the path of the fear of God . I have broken the generational curse which is the removal of the horizontal line that crosses the vertical line to God. And God is about to show the world what it looks like when someone who fears God. I did it alone with the angel of my presence the first to do it since the one Jesus loved John therefore God is crowning me king of the world and we are rudely taking back the truth from the hands of those who follow the devil's image. And to those who have a demon dwelling in their right eye you be hunted down and slaughter and based on the stinking offerings it's not looking good for you. Jesus said, Another one will come in his own name and him God is forcing his acceptance. Jesus also said, And upon this rock the gates of hell will not prevail against him. Guys I'm that rock and the stone who becomes the chief corner stone. My living sacrifice is completing the process of the fear of God and it is now GAMED and the satanic reign ends with me. King and priest and m going in to the room to speak to God.
Someone correct me if I way off but wouldn’t Paul asking an emphatic rhetorical question like “Do you not know that you are a temple of God…” imply that this is a fact he would’ve expected to know and comprehend FROM Scripture I.e. “Old Testament”? It seems from the context, that it is a fact that is evident from scripture itself. Understanding the tabernacle and temple in a temporal sense was meant to/ did teach the “spiritual” eternal reality of mankind being the temple of God’s Spirit? I hope I don’t sound condescending it’s a genuine question.
If he took away sin, why are people still sinning ? Awesome discussion. I hope Andrew watches this hole video. I believe it will shine light on his on out look. Again, thank you both.
Again and again we see that Satan no longer needs to convince mankind that sin is no longer a concern and some sin is ok to do. Now the church does it for him. It is blaspheming the breath of Elohiym that spoke the ccommandments. Just good old fashioned blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Way to go "church" you're doing the enemies bidding.
So I listened to the entire talk. Honestly, I dont think even Andrew understands his own position, referring to the last 25ish minutes. At the very least, he hasnt thought out his position systematically enough and then be able to teach it clearly. There have been plenty of teachers that I've listened to that I disagree with them on a certain topic, but when they taught the subject, I understood their train of thought and what they were trying to teach.
Andrew, even if you are right, you need to come up with a more systematic train of thought that can be easily taught. You confused Caleb, I would say even yourself, and myself. Im sure Im not the only listener that wasnt tracking.
There is no proof that your Messiah is a priest in heaven because that is just a claim your religion makes. Since people can't see what is going on in heaven, no one can really disprove what your religion says. What is the proof for this belief? Second, there is no explanation about what a priest would do in heaven. Are there animal sacrifices like peace offerings, if not sin-offerings? What would the offerings be in heaven?
Also, before your Messiah was born, do you believe there was a priest in heaven offering sin offerings or any other sacrifices?
@@kennethgreifer5123 there is no proof - true. May the God of all shalom enlighten your heart by the Ruach. May he regenerate your mind and give you His gift of faith, in the name of Yeshua.
One cannot “see” it unless God gives him eyes. Perhaps he will.
@@kennethgreifer5123 see also Psalm 110
🥹
The reason many “Torah observant” people concede that Hebrews supposedly implies the earthly sacrificial system is abolished is NOT because that’s just what it says, it’s because they ALSO don’t understand it. It’s not exactly an easy to grasp, super clear explicit book. People insist on interpreting the Scripture from Hebrews instead of interpreting Hebrews from the rest of Scripture. How can we justify reinterpreting clear explicit passages spoken by Christ Himself based on misguided assumptions drawn from vague passages in Hebrews?
@sergloera
1 day ago
The reason many “Torah observant” people concede that Hebrews supposedly implies the earthly sacrificial system is abolished is NOT because that’s just what it says, it’s because they ALSO don’t understand it.
*That conclusion suggests the author of Hebrews was deeply misinformed then. How can people misunderstand what god is doing if god has written his law in their hearts and concludes in Jeremiah 31:34 that they don’t need teachers like the author of Hebrews anymore to help them to know God? If anyone who is a teacher about god thinks we are under the New covenant, then Jeremiah 31:34 has just put them out of a job. God will not need teachers under the New Covenant once he writes his law in man’s heart.
God doesn’t bring us under the New covenant until after the gospel commission and all the teaching about God is over. And even after the gospel commission has ended, god has to remove our stony heart in Ezekiel 11 and 36, because he can’t write his law in a stony heart, because the condition of a heart like an adamant stone as defined by god in Zechariah 7 is a refusal to hear God’s law and the words he sent by his Spirit through his prophets: the same forever rebellion God has Isaiah write a book about in Isaiah 30. When these and other issues are cleared up, then and only then will God actually be in a position to give us a new heart designed to make us fit to allow him to write his law in our heart and bring us under the New Covenant.*
It’s not exactly an easy to grasp, super clear explicit book.
*I just want to know who told the author of Hebrews that the law needed to be changed in order for Christ to become a priest after the order of Melchizedek, seeing the torah accomidates both priesthoods? And who told the author of Hebrews that the Old Covenant was ready to vanish away in Hebrews 8:13? Didn’t christ warn us to not so much as even think that he came to destroy the law or the prophets either one in Matthew 5:17?*
People insist on interpreting the Scripture from Hebrews instead of interpreting Hebrews from the rest of Scripture.
*This is what happens when god’s warning in Isaiah 8:20 is utterly disregarded. God never claimed the book of Hebrews was the way to test to see if someone had light or not. But, christ in the gospels is called the “light of the world”, indicating that his doctrine is properly able to pass the test of Isaiah 8:20. I’m not convinced the author of Hebrews ideas all pan out though.*
How can we justify reinterpreting clear explicit passages spoken by Christ Himself based on misguided assumptions drawn from vague passages in Hebrews?
*It all screams that we are not yet under the New covenant. When we are under the New Covenant for real and God writes his law in our heart, we won’t need any outside interpreter like the author of Hebrews to properly understand God and his words.
Rule of thumb is to not read hebrews until fully understanding the law
@@coreybray9834 I’d just caution against assuming there’s anything inherently “wrong” with Hebrews. If anything, the “helpful” supplied words put in by translators and subsequent misinterpretations is skewed. The scripture itself however contains 0 contradictions.
@sergloera
8 hours ago
@coreybray9834 I’d just caution against assuming there’s anything inherently “wrong” with Hebrews.
*You mean like when the author of Hebrews in chapter 8 claims the Old Covenant was faulty? So, it is okay for the author of Hebrews to claim something from God is faulty, but it is not okay to claim the author of Hebrews is faulty in what he writes??? Didn’t God give us Isaiah 8:20 as a test for situations like this? Because I suspect the author of Hebrews is in a lot of hot water here, but Christians are just being lazy as usual. That being said, I’d be curious how you reconcile Hebrews 8:13 with Matthew 5:17, because it sounds to me like the author of Hebrews is trying to contradict the Savior’s own claim there. And I am not convinced Hebrews 8:13 passes the test of Isaiah 8:20 either.*
If anything, the “helpful” supplied words put in by translators and subsequent misinterpretations is skewed.
*That is for you to demonstrate is actually the case. I am not saying you are correct or incorrect here, just that you haven’t really made any kind of a meaningful case for how you reached that conclusion here.*
The scripture itself however contains 0 contradictions.
*Some like to believe so. If you have a way to prove conclusively that is the case, I would love to see it. Personally, it doesn’t bother me either way. If the Bible has no contradictions, then great, life goes on. If the Bible has a few contradictions, that is okay too, my faith in God isn’t shattered. It just means I have to be aware this happens and I’m fully prepared for that too, and life again goes on.
If there is a part of the Bible that is flawless, I suspect it is the collection of verses where God is actually speaking words with his own mouth. Because those are the words Christ says man shall live by in Matthew 4:4. And when Sarah contradicts God and said she didn’t laugh, but God said she did, you don’t believe that to be a contradiction either, right? What about when Christ rebukes Peter in Matthew 16? Are you going to sit here and tell me they were in perfect agreement, or was the Savior’s reasoning correct there and Peter was wrong? Who was right when Christ said Peter would deny him thrice? Peter said that wouldn’t happen, but then it happened. The reality is there are contradictions all over the Bible, because God is constantly correcting the mistakes of people and their failure to understand things correctly. So, contradictions in the Bible are kind of unavoidable. The question which remains is what kind of impact do these contradictions have on the message the Bible is conveying? In most cases I find they show God to be supremely competent and man not so competent. I can live with that being the case, can you???
@@sergloera
@@coreybray9834 the word covenant is not in verse 13. It’s not in verse 7 either. Read it in Greek, it’s not there. A majority of translations insert the word for grammatical “clarity” but they obviously chose the wrong supplied word in that case. A better option potentially would have been “ministry” or “priesthood” or even “tabernacle”. Ideally not supplying any word would have probably been best. If you read this passage in Spanish in the RVR version it actually does not insert anything in verse 7, it simply reads as “Porque si aquel primero fuera sin falta, cierto no se hubiera procurado lugar de segundo.” “if that first would have been faultless, there would have been no need sought for a second” first what? Second what? Can’t be covenant because there were way more than two covenants. There was however only ever two priesthoods, Aaronic/Levitical order and the Melchizedek/Messiah Eternal Order. Without a supplied word the reader can interpret priesthood or tabernacle from the context of the passage instead of being supplied a word derived from incorrect presuppositions from the translators. I myself caught this because I read multiple versions when I study and I frequently consult the RVR because its the version I grew up using in a Spanish speaking church. It does supply the word in verse 13 in italics with a notation as well though but the context and the references to priesthood and tabernacle earlier in the passage makes it clear, at least to anyone diligently studying, that covenant is not the best interpretation for the context. In any case, most translations are very upfront about this by the way most either italicize or put supplied words in brackets or asterisks to indicate their modification and they typically include footnotes describing what how and why they arrived at the translation decision made for any given instances of textual variance. The author of Hebrews is not contradicting the rest of Scripture. The passage in chapter 8 describes the insufficiency of the Levitical/Aaronic priesthood in contrast to the perfection of the Eternal Priesthood of Messiah and how only His Priestly work accomplishes true atonement for the remission of sin. By the way those were not examples of “contradictions” you mentioned, they are contrasting statements that are clearly defined as either true and correct or false and/or lies. Such as when the text clearly tells us someone lied or bore false testimony, those aren’t contradictions. The Scriptures have 0 contradictions. It is true most people are too lazy to diligently examine the Scriptures, such as people who are quick to disregard whole passages and even books of the inspired Word of God just because they don’t take the time to see if a perceived discrepancy is even present in the original language.