Jump to content


Photo

Heb. 9:22? Why?


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 04 August 2011 - 09:23 PM

Who is owed the payment and why? Are we paying God or Satan?


Satan isn't even in the equation. Jesus wasn't paying Satan - God doesn't owe Satan anything.

The cross was God's love paying the ransom to God's holiness.

#42 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 04 August 2011 - 09:24 PM

I didn't look at the word deified in the article in that way. Not arguing with you, but then why does New Jerusalem come down out of heaven and why are Christ's followers called his joint heirs?

Sorry I freaked out and stuff. Its just that when I see words like apotheosis or deification, I think of the idea of man becoming a god. He dosen't need to consider the real God or join in a relationship with him, because one day, he will become a god himself, perhaps create his own little universe. I don't think thats taught anywhere in the Bible, but us being joint heirs with Christ means that we will be joint enjoyers of his allotment. When our bodies are delivered from their present slavery and death at our Lord's descent from heaven, he will transfigure them to conform them to His body (Phil.3:21). I'm not trying to be argumentative with you either, but what would New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven have to do with us being deified?

#43 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 04 August 2011 - 09:53 PM

Satan isn't even in the equation. Jesus wasn't paying Satan - God doesn't owe Satan anything.

The cross was God's love paying the ransom to God's holiness.


Ransom? Who's demanding a ransom?

#44 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 04 August 2011 - 10:50 PM

Sorry I freaked out and stuff. Its just that when I see words like apotheosis or deification, I think of the idea of man becoming a god. He dosen't need to consider the real God or join in a relationship with him, because one day, he will become a god himself, perhaps create his own little universe.

Oh no, not at all, quite the opposite!

His purpose then was to teach us about His perfect love so that we will choose to have communion with Him. This communion is what washes us clean.

I don't think thats taught anywhere in the Bible, but us being joint heirs with Christ means that we will be joint enjoyers of his allotment. When our bodies are delivered from their present slavery and death at our Lord's descent from heaven, he will transfigure them to conform them to His body (Phil.3:21).

Exactly. I was under the impression that this is what the meaning of the word deified was in the article.

I'm not trying to be argumentative with you either, but what would New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven have to do with us being deified?

To me, New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven means God living with us; all of creation being transformed, heaven and earth being one.

#45 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 05 August 2011 - 01:06 AM

Oh no, not at all, quite the opposite!Exactly. I was under the impression that this is what the meaning of the word deified was in the article.To me, New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven means God living with us; all of creation being transformed, heaven and earth being one.

Couldn't New Jerusalem be the literal kingdom that Christ will be the ruler of, that literally comes down out of heaven, that God promised to give to the Israelites?

#46 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 05 August 2011 - 04:30 AM

Couldn't New Jerusalem be the literal kingdom that Christ will be the ruler of, that literally comes down out of heaven, that God promised to give to the Israelites?

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will [a]dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them[b],

I always assumed that this meant more than that. There is also the fact that the righteous have been promised both heaven and earth.

#47 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 05 August 2011 - 02:19 PM

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will [a]dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them[b],

I always assumed that this meant more than that. There is also the fact that the righteous have been promised both heaven and earth.

Right, but your mixing up New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven with a new heaven and a new earth. They don't say the same thing. A new heaven and a new earth will come, but its not the same thing as New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven.

#48 ChrisCarlascio

ChrisCarlascio

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Lakeland, Florida

Posted 06 August 2011 - 03:45 AM

Right, but your mixing up New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven with a new heaven and a new earth. They don't say the same thing. A new heaven and a new earth will come, but its not the same thing as New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven.

New Jerusalem comes down to earth from heaven right after the new heaven and new earth appear. So they are pretty closely related. There was no point in me getting all picky about it.

#49 Air-run

Air-run

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 104 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Evolution, The Bible, Theology, Art, Video Games
  • Age: 34
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Seattle, Washington

Posted 06 August 2011 - 11:18 PM

Ransom? Who's demanding a ransom?


Sorry, ransom isn't really the best metaphor.
It's better to say that we owed a debt to God and God payed the debt to himself for us.

#50 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 07 August 2011 - 03:51 AM

Sorry, ransom isn't really the best metaphor.
It's better to say that we owed a debt to God and God payed the debt to himself for us.


Which begs the question: Why not just forgive the debt rather than paying it to yourself?

#51 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 07 August 2011 - 07:45 AM

Which begs the question: Why not just forgive the debt rather than paying it to yourself?


I have a good friend who has owed me $520 for several years. I recently removed this debt from Quicken, as he will likely not be able to pay it anytime soon because of the economy. I have forgiven this debt. What you seem to miss is that I am out $520. I can't just forgive the debt without paying the price myself. My net worth the moment I forgave the debt in Quicken shrunk by $520. Now imagine it is a life. The cost of just one sin is eventual loss of life (in addition to spiritual separation from God). Death is the price, the cost. In order to pay that price, a life has to be given, and that life has to be the life of the person forgiving the debt. It makes absolute, 100% perfect sense.

Fred

#52 jamo0001

jamo0001

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • Christian
  • Atheist
  • Cincinnati, OH

Posted 07 August 2011 - 08:22 AM

The cost of just one sin is eventual loss of life (in addition to spiritual separation from God). Death is the price, the cost. In order to pay that price, a life has to be given, and that life has to be the life of the person forgiving the debt. It makes absolute, 100% perfect sense.


Yes, but your net worth is determined by a higher authority (bank, treasury, etc). If God is the ultimate authority, then his net worth should not be subject to the actions of others.

And the "price of sin is death" is still an arbitrary decision by God. He could've just as easily said "the price of sin is devout prayer".

#53 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,583 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 07 August 2011 - 12:38 PM

[quote] name='jamo0001' timestamp='1312182017' post='73536']
"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." -Hebrews 9:22 (KJV)

This has been one of the most unsettling questions in my mind as I've grown up in the church. I have had trouble both reconciling it with reason (cause:effect) and believing it to be congruent with the nature of God.[/quote]

Jam,

With all due respect, how can you judge what is "congruent with the nature of God"? You don't even believe that He exists. But for argument sake, I will tell you why he required animal sacrifices from Israel. Most false religion starters (joseph Smith and Mohammed) bear witness of themselves and come on the scene unannounced. But Jesus Christ did not arive unannounced. Over thousands of years, His coming is prophesied in the history, culture, symbolic laws, feasts, diet, and even the clothing.

For example, their clothes had to be of one fiber because Jesus is their pure covering. The high priest could not be blind because in Jesus the blind see. The high priest could not be lame, for in Jesus the lame walk. The lamb offering at the Passover had to be a lamb without spot or blemish--as Jesus was without sin. Just as the lamb's blood over the door caused death to "pass over" that house, so too, the shed blood of Jesus causes death to pass over us. The five cities of refuge were symbolic of Abraham's bosom because when the "the one who was high priest in those days died, then the man could go home to his father." So too, when the True High Priest Jesus died, those in Abraham's Bosom could go home to their father--"Jesus led captives free."

You find "unsettling" the fact that animals were sacrificed. You are offended by God's word. Forget the animals. We should have regret that Jesus (God) had to enter His creation to rescue us because we are sinners. All sins that we commit are against God and violate His law. This requires a sacrifice of infinite value, because His sacrifice pays for our infinite existence. No lesser sacrifice would balance the eternal scales of justice.

[quote]Example: Why did God require the Hebrews to make burnt sacrifices? Why such a wasteful practice? Why not alms or tithes in order both to feed the Levites and to benefit the poor? Why not gifts of their time? Why only particular animals? How could a metaphysical God be "pleased" by such a smell? (Lev. 1:9) How does God "smell" something? If he does, then why not "smell" something else instead of a living thing being burned? If this is simply an arbitrary requirement, then that is fine when you're living in Old Testament times. However, when an arbitrary requirement requires a human being to be tortured and murdered, then suddenly its rational basis becomes more relevant.[/quote]

"Why not alms or tithes in order both to feed the Levites and to benefit the poor?" Give too much to the poor and they will not work. Hunger is the strongest motivation for someone to work. Actually, the Levites got to eat the sacrifices that were brought in to the temple. This is why they could not own any land. Why did the priest and his family get to eat the sacrifices? Because later in the gospels Jesus could purposely offend His followers to highlight what was done in the OT: "You can have no salvation unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood." God often did this to bring attention to certain thngs. For example, He commanded Abraham to leave everything to Isaac and leave Ishmael (first born)out of his will. Then later in the law, God commanded that the first born get it all. Why? Because Jesus Christ, the second born takes Adam's (first born) inheirtence (sin and death). He literally steals Adam's inheirtance of sin and death so that we can have life through Him.

Nothing that God does is "arbitrary." Rather what atheist believe is arbitrary because they really have no reason to believe with they believe. Why do you find Jesus's sacrifice repugnant? This is why you should worship Him with reverence. If you were about to be executed for murder and the warden unstrapped you and said, "Someone has just volunteered to die for you. You are free to go." Would you find it repugnant that someone did that for you? I think not.

Understand that under the law, you, Jam, are guilty. And on judgment day, you will be judged under the law. "By the law, no flesh will be justified." When you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, you are taken out from under the ordinances that are against you. And where there is no law, there is no condemnation.

Instead of finding fault with God's method of salvation, you should get on your knees and say, "Thank you, Jesus." In the other thread, you used God's gift of a rational mind, logic, morality and uniformity of nature, to argue against His existence. Although as an atheist you have no rational basis to be offended morally, you nevertheless are offended and righteously indignant. Why? Because you know God, but you supress the truth of Him.




[quote]In essence, I do not understand why a sacrifice (whether on the part of the offender or the offended) is required for forgiveness, much less the sacrifice of a third y aparty. I am able to forgive without needing a physical sacrifice on the part of my offender, much less the shedding of his/someone else's blood, and I am made in the image of God. Why doesn't He do the same? Furthermore, if the purpose of a burnt offering/shedding of blood is merely to make the offender "give up" something, then why does Jesus' blood accomplish this? How can such a sacrifice be transferred like a bank deposit to a different individual (the sinner)?[/quote]

You are made in the image of God. But you can't claim to be so. You are an atheist. Please make up your mind. You either came from chemicals by accident or from the dust of the earth by God. And I'll bet that if I owed you a million dollars, you would not be so eager to forgive me without any payment. Animal sacrifice pointed to Jesus Christ, the final sacrifice. Any who died before the Cross did not go to heaven. The righteous went to Abraham's bosom to await Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Jesus Christ is the end of the law for righteousness. He gave His law (which we could not keep.) Then He came into His creation and fulfilled the law which we could not fulfill. How would you like to buy a car and the salesman come to your side of the table and wrie the check for the car? Jesus did what we could not do to balance God's sacales of justice. We go to heaven not because of our rightousness but because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

[quote]Respectfully, I ask that you not simply quote Paul or other NT theologians about this issue unless they explain WHY such things are logical. I'm asking for a rational basis for this doctrine in an effort to make it seem like more than a square peg being pounded into a round hole.
[/quote]

I will not concent to your request and give up my Biblical position. My position is correct. Why should I give it up? This would be like asking a soldier to give up his hill and then defend the hill. Without the Bible and God's world, logic could not exist and I could not use logic to answer you. First you have to accept God before you can accept His word. First things first. Spiritual matters can't be discerned without the Spirit of God dwelling within you. Otherwise, the word of God is "foolishness" to you.

TeeJay

#54 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 12 August 2011 - 12:16 AM

Just in case not all have read the rules pertaining to this section:

This Bible Q&A forum is intended as a place to debate and discuss Christian doctrine and application, interpretation issues, attitude and lifestyle, etc. Questions are encouraged by Christians and non-Christians-alike; however, non-Christians are not permitted to directly answer questions submitted in the opening post (non-Christians include Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses)[1], or otherwise present from a Bible advocacy position. Follow-up participation is open to all, but for non-Christians it should be primarily in the spirit of inquiry.

There will be some general leeway on questions regarding alleged contradictions or other Bible criticisms, provided it is in the spirit of understanding the passage, and is not from the usual skeptic fare that is insincere and has been debated countless times over across the internet. Please be sure to regularly use scripture to back up claims.

For example, we do not want to waste time in this forum debating things like: "how did the kangaroo get to Australia", "is Pi wrong in the Bible?", "the gospels contradict each other", "Creation and the Flood are stories copied from Babylonian myths" etc. While there are solid answers to these specious skeptic favorites, this isn't the intent of this forum. There may be occasions where we choose to answer questions like these, but we will also likely close the topic after our response to prevent wasting time on further debate.

Examples of topics that are welcome in this forum include "Pre-destination and free will", "Is there sin in heaven?", "What is the Bible's position on euthanasia?", "The Bible and slavery" etc.

For those seeking answers to almost every alleged Bible contradiction, perhaps the foremost website in dealing with these is

www.tektonics.org.

Fred Williams

[1] - The following represent the very core of Christianity and are essential for salvation: the deity of Christ, the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, salvation by grace alone through Christ alone, and the core gospel as outlined by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15.



#55 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 12 August 2011 - 12:19 AM

The orthodox teaching of the ransom is very different than a payment for someone's sins. It is nothing like the statement in the OP. It might help Jam to come to an understanding from a different angle. I don't know enough about it to say much more, or to recommend it really, but an Orthodox said this to me: The financial model of salvation is a newer development of doctrine. Who is owed the payment and why? Are we paying God or Satan? Also, as far as I understand, in Orthodoxy His resurrection is just as important as His death. Here is a link. I am new to all of this, so I am not really recommending this view, but it is a different one than what has been previously offered. The word "reconciler" is where the most pressing of information is contained. http://oca.org/OCcha...asp?SID=2&ID=20

I didn't look at the word deified in the article in that way. Not arguing with you, but then why does New Jerusalem come down out of heaven and why are Christ's followers called his joint heirs?



Satan isn't even in the equation. Jesus wasn't paying Satan - God doesn't owe Satan anything.

The cross was God's love paying the ransom to God's holiness.

Just to clarify. It was a rhetorical question meant to explain the Orthodox teaching, not something I was asking.

I loved Fred's answer though.

I have a good friend who has owed me $520 for several years. I recently removed this debt from Quicken, as he will likely not be able to pay it anytime soon because of the economy. I have forgiven this debt. What you seem to miss is that I am out $520. I can't just forgive the debt without paying the price myself. My net worth the moment I forgave the debt in Quicken shrunk by $520. Now imagine it is a life. The cost of just one sin is eventual loss of life (in addition to spiritual separation from God). Death is the price, the cost. In order to pay that price, a life has to be given, and that life has to be the life of the person forgiving the debt. It makes absolute, 100% perfect sense.

Fred






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users