Honesty

[James_Lai]

Thank you for all the answers! I’ll read through and reply .

Happy Sunday everyone! God bless

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Hello.
I have a question about your own experience of walk in the Christian faith.

It concerns intellectual honesty towards teachings.

I see that people accept teachings, and then stop questioning. Axiomatic, dogmatic approach. Of course I understand it’s how faith or religion works. Otherwise it’s not religion.

How is it possible? I know, people are scared to miss heaven or end up in hell. When I for a few moments consider the possibilities of those outcomes in the afterlife, I also get genuinely scared, it’s a natural psychological reaction. We want to avoid suffering and we like pleasure. It’s the most basic mechanism of motivation that we share with most forms of life on earth. Even the nervous system of lobsters is practically identical in that regard, how their actions are controlled. Carrot and stick. Both rooted in the same brain region as shown by the latest research.

We are more than our nervous system though. Can we overcome the more primitive urges and try and see certain things as they are objectively?

This has to do with any kind of faith, not only Christianity. Even atheist worldview for example.

Or is it imperative to step over the higher conscious frontal cortex reasoning? I don’t know.

I’m not saying rejecting something outright only because it requires faith. A hypothesis is a healthy way to propose ideas that can be very true. I’m more interested in to what degree do you allow doubt? Or is doubt to be chased away as a double-minded man’s destructive waves?

I guess for me I use an evidence-based approach. For me, there has been plenty of evidence for God's existence. It is from this evidence that I question other ideas such as evolution (a thing I do not believe in). I start with the basis: I have seen enough of God to trust Him, so I doubt any doubtful thing.

 

[James_Lai]

The big question for me is, what do I doubt, and why do I doubt it?

A double-minded man has anxiety issues. I was that man. In that context, doubt is essentially faith in something negative. When I doubted that God could or would forgive me, I had faith in something outside of the New Testament that ran counter to its teachings about the power, authority, and mercy of God through Jesus. So faith and doubt to me are really two sides of the same coin. I doubt this, because I have faith in that. I have faith in this, so I have my doubts about that. Now, I realize that when discovering new information, there's a middle state where you simply don't know enough to make a call at all, but that was not my circumstance at this juncture and both "sides" had made their cases already. When it comes to a decision to follow Jesus, the cases have been made and the time has come when there is no middle anymore - yes, or no.

So, in the context that is relevant, we have faith in one direction, and faith in the other direction. If doubt enters, that is still faith in something else. And therefore that doubt can be questioned. If I believe in this, why do I doubt that? Does doubt in one thing nullify faith in another thing? What are the dependencies at stake? One of my hobbies and skill sets is Linux. When installing software on Linux, the best way to do that is through the trusted repository, because it will automatically install the software that you want, and the software dependencies that it needs in order to run. Break a dependency, and you break the software. If you frame a core belief of Christianity as the software, and doubt enters, then one must ask if the reason for the doubt is really a dependency. Often times, it isn't.

For example: "God doesn't exist because a bad thing happened" is false. The existence of God does not depend upon whether or not bad things happen. The Bible records many bad things happening in both Testaments, yet it is given that God exists. And little wonder, because a God that is preeminent, who pre-existed the world in which bad things happen, and who pre-existed the people who do bad things does not depend on their good behavior in order to exist.


In terms of natural psychological reactions, Christianity actually teaches us to not rely solely on those. Those reactions are the same ones that cause us to pre-judge, and when we act out of prejudice, then it's very easy to do and say unwise and unloving things. It teaches us to be patient, to evaluate before reacting, to not overreact when we react. It's the wisdom of Proverbs, and Jesus lived this way too. This is closely related to another Christian virtue, humility. We must be humble enough to gather information about situations and to give people benefit of the doubt as we gather that information so that we can make a right judgment. It is also closely related to honesty, because it's easy to get careless when we simply react, and just as we can act on misinformation, we can pass on misinformation. The more honest and humble we are, the more careful we will be in what we say.

All of this is Biblical wisdom applied, though it might not be packaged in a way that some people choose to package it.

Faith in one thing and doubt in another. I understand. How about the teachings you accept by faith without any doubt? Do you revisit them, as reviewing to be true or not? Or never? Or maybe shutting off any questions as a sign of weakness of faith? I’m really interested to know how it works.

Just to give you an example. People explain to me the idea of God. It sounds pretty anthropomorphic… OK I accept God as this “super human” not bound by space and time with supreme but still human-like abilities. Then I’m thinking, does He really have to be like us? Why do we assign our humanity to Him? In a very expanded way, of course. So I always question everything. It’s really hard for me to accept any idea as the one and only and the final truth, an axiom. Even in science, I read a textbook or talk to a specialist in a field and sometimes see dogmatism. It’s okay to say this is what we propose, but it’s another thing to be certain it’s the way it is and to outright reject whatever is in disagreement with the accepted and established postulates.

So going back to the idea of God, what if we are wrong. Or in our model of God, what if He’s a God of the solar system only for example. Or of the Milky Galaxy only. In most if the OT, God was the only force in the Universe, later on the Jewish thought and much more so the Christian thought switched to good vs evil, God vs Satan dualism, which worked better to explained human suffering. What if in reality, if we accept the dualist nature of the supernatural spiritual world, what if God and Satan are more or less equal forces? Like in Zoroastrianism. And what if there won’t be a final battle where the good wins once and for all?

What I’m getting at, we don’t know. So we can try and understand, and retain impartiality in recognizing the fact we simply don’t know. Then it helps us do an open-minded research which may or may not lead us to discovering the real truth? See things as they are

So it’s not so much about separating what is more fundamental truth and what is a dependancy or falsely imagined dependancy. It’s more about approaching all doctrines within faith with intellectual honesty of “let’s scrutinize everything”.

About natural reactions, yes, the reflexes aren’t always good in every situation as they were dictated by simple survival… Our environment and most of all our values have changed, so certainly I agree the natural biological responses in some cases are way outdated… It’s great that as humans we can realize and overcome that.

 

[James_Lai]

As God is the creator of the material universe I can't separate the two. The material world is the workshop of the spiritual.

I understand this. We know anything in the Universe through our perception of the outside world. Well, how about the inner world? Something, that some claim, can be experienced beyond and often despite the physical? The inner investigation as for example by secluded prayer and meditation… A spiritual quest. Like ascetic monastics who try to minimize the noise of our physical faculties to hear the feeble and barely noticeable voice of the spiritual.

 

[James_Lai]

No it is about honesty towards truth.

You have examined detailed investigations into Christianity by intelligent determined investigators. Have they shown Jesus's resurrection to be true or false?

For me it was a shock to discover that if there was no resurrection there was no case for Christianity.
I found the evidence confirmed hat the bible says so I had no choice but to follow the truth.

Are you able to be as honest?

Great. I understand your stand. Then my question to you, within the subject of this thread, do you question the things you accept by faith? If not, why?

I talk about only what is faith-based. I’m not talking about the knowledge you consider factual based on proof and investigation. Only what is seen by the eyes of believing

 

[James_Lai]

First, I could and would argue that the "dogmatic approach" is not necessary for religion. In reading the Gospels, there is little if anything that Jesus said about dogma and doctrine. The fundamental truths of Christianity really are not about doctrines, but rather about embracing the Gospel (Good News) and taking action accordingly. Over the centuries, the "practice" of Christianity has become one of verbal assent to a list of beliefs and doctrines. Not at all what Jesus commanded his followers to do.

You ask about our personal experience. I was baptized Catholic but not raised in the faith. So, very little Mass attendance, no Catholic schooling, no Catholic religious education. As a young adult, and under the benign influence of a person I call my guardian angel, I began taking instruction. This included reading a catechism. Much of what I read brought questions to my mind. I asked friends who were Cradle Catholics my questions. I could not find anyone who had either wondered about these things themselves or questioned what they had been taught. I was frankly amazed.

I could not, back then, be that kind of Catholic Christian, nor can I be that kind now. I had the opportunity to discuss some of my questions and doubts with various religious instructors, priests, and even a bishop or two. An example I recall clearly is talking with the associate pastor of my parish at the time about why we had all these holy days for Mary. To me, it made her more important than Jesus in the view of the Church. He did not admonish me but actually agreed with my viewpoint. Of course, neither of us could do anything about it.

There have been times when I've asked a priest (and once a bishop) if I should refrain from Communion since I wasn't sure if I could whole-heartedly accept all of the Church's teachings. In no case did any of them discourage me or prohibit me; rather, they commended me for coming to them and talking about it. I think they appreciated that a Catholic layperson was actually trying to understand some of these more difficult subjects, rather than just accepting what they were told but did not understand.

An example I will use is that several surveys of Catholic churchgoers show that only about half either understand the concept of Transubstantiation or accept it. But they go to Mass and receive Communion anyway. I cannot be that kind of Catholic.

My conclusion is that people are not really honest about the teachings of the Church. But this could be from ignorance more than purposeful rejection.

I think the biggest problem in this regard is that the fundamental points of the Gospels have been obscured and replaced with a lot bric-a-brac, which the institutional churches have made more important than following Jesus.

So interesting!!! Thank you.

You compare the teaching of Jesus which is more practical to believing theoretical doctrines of the church, and shared your path of deeper understanding and analysis of church teachings and practices as opposed to blond acceptance and kind of thoughtless following… Sorry if I misunderstood something, please correct me if so. It’s interesting that some clergy supported you in your questions, but at the same time them and you agree that reform is problematic. I heard similar sentiment from some Protestant pastors. Church is a conservative institution.

Well, if you don’t thing dogmatic approach is necessary for religion, then is there anything that’s beyond question to you? If so, why? At which point can you stop your quest and be satisfied or what doctrines or which of the ideas you accept by faith do not deserve similar level of scrutiny as, say, amount of veneration of the blessed Mary?

 

[James_Lai]

One of the best cures for doubt is to remember that Christianity has been around over 2000 years, if there were things that were not rational it would have disappeared long ago, there is a logical reason for everything we believe.

So could be true about other religions? Some exist even longer, or similar period of time.

 

[James_Lai]

I came from a different place than most ….although I was raised in the RC church I ditched that at about age 14 and after a few years I became an atheist…shortly thereafter I got into Satanism and became a priest in a coven. ….(very long story) but God literally rescued me from the grips of death ..and there was no doubt about who rescued me… because what took place showed me that God had greater power than Satan…….and I had seen and operated the satanic powers.

Many Christians question if they are saved …and they take that on faith…. I do not… because God has given us an absolute means to know if we are born again…. But many people are reluctant to tap that…. I don’t question my salvation… whatsoever.

About the only thing I have to take on faith is the “HOPE” ….the return of Christ…. You can’t see or believe for hope, you can only have the faith that it will happen….. I think that is it….I thought there was more but…that is all.

I know that there are a few things that many Christians say they take on faith…. like what happen when you die, questions about heaven or hell, do believers go through the tribulation…these are some of the things that religion has twisted up so badly and added their own definition to, I’m not surprised they don’t have a clear answer to ….But the Bible clearly lays out the answers to everything….there are no mysteries or secrets that God has not explained….that only happens with religions because religion is what man thinks of God as opposed to what God wrought through His son Jesus Christ.



There are biblical questions that I have but nothing significant …things like…. why and what was the fruit on the tree of knowledge of good and evil.. and what was the tree. What caused the earth to become a wasteland between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2….

Things I will find out in due time

Very interesting!!! About Satanism, I’m not much familiar with it first-hand, but studying it indirectly from books and articles etc, probably good you left it eventually!! Though I know there are different “flavours” of Satanism, some more sinister and spiritual than others.

So you say you have knowledge and have faith, and that if you deeply understand Jesus and His work, then everything is pretty clear. Could you share what exactly you tap into to obtain assurance of the new birth from above?

 

[James_Lai]

I guess for me I use an evidence-based approach. For me, there has been plenty of evidence for God's existence. It is from this evidence that I question other ideas such as evolution (a thing I do not believe in). I start with the basis: I have seen enough of God to trust Him, so I doubt any doubtful thing.

What if you were born in a Muslim or a Buddhist country? Would you find confirmation of your faith in life events?
At some point you learned and accepted Christian doctrines, from there you went on a journey to see if they are true or not and found proof of their veracity. The ideas that you hold firmly by faith, that can’t possibly be conformed or are yet to be manifested in your experience, do you question them? And if not, why? Never even a shadow of doubt?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I understand this. We know anything in the Universe through our perception of the outside world. Well, how about the inner world? Something, that some claim, can be experienced beyond and often despite the physical? The inner investigation as for example by secluded prayer and meditation… A spiritual quest. Like ascetic monastics who try to minimize the noise of our physical faculties to hear the feeble and barely noticeable voice of the spiritual.

I think we should try to master the lower forms of consciousness, those connected to the physical, before we go for the higher forms. Our problems have a spiritual cause but are manifested in the physical.

 

[James_Lai]

Okay, but I wouldn't call thinking God to be a spirit, or that he can perform miracles, as meaning that the religion is at odds with the facts of Nature. If it were so, the only religion that would qualify as having a direct relationship with the facts of Nature would be one that worships Nature.

Indeed, all Christian sacraments require a physical element in order to be valid, our God took on a human nature, and we believe in the ultimate reunification of the body with the soul. It may be that Christianity has a more direct relationship with Nature than you suspect and more than other of the great world religions do.

I see this aspect in Christianity or most other religions. Most of what we know in our mind is based in the physical. So the only way we can experience this dimension is through outwardly directed sensorics. But knowing something in our mind and something actually existing not the same thing? Isn’t it why all religions rely on some kind if Revelation?

How about an inner, spiritual, pure consciousness independent of our carnal identity? Say, during night dreaming, when the outward inputs are switched off or diminished. So many God’s revelations to people were transferred in sleep or during daytime non-physical visions. And of course prayer and meditation.

It’s all so super interesting!

 

[James_Lai]

I think we should try to master the lower forms of consciousness, those connected to the physical, before we go for the higher forms. Our problems have a spiritual cause but are manifested in the physical.

Can we at least not try? Many in churches or Hindu temples urge to experience God or the mystical chitta dimension of consciousness

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Can we at least not try? Many in churches or Hindu temples urge to experience God or the mystical chitta dimension of consciousness

We would have to forsake everything physical and live a monastic life like those monks. However in the west we would be regarded as something less than 'holy'.

That said I believe the best way to experience that higher consciousness is by attaining the highest pinnacle of physical health possible. Of course this requires the great effort of fasting and other disciplines, something that is wholly incompatible with the western way of life.

 

[bling]

Hello.
I have a question about your own experience of walk in the Christian faith.

It concerns intellectual honesty towards teachings.

I see that people accept teachings, and then stop questioning. Axiomatic, dogmatic approach. Of course I understand it’s how faith or religion works. Otherwise it’s not religion.

How is it possible? I know, people are scared to miss heaven or end up in hell. When I for a few moments consider the possibilities of those outcomes in the afterlife, I also get genuinely scared, it’s a natural psychological reaction. We want to avoid suffering and we like pleasure. It’s the most basic mechanism of motivation that we share with most forms of life on earth. Even the nervous system of lobsters is practically identical in that regard, how their actions are controlled. Carrot and stick. Both rooted in the same brain region as shown by the latest research.

We are more than our nervous system though. Can we overcome the more primitive urges and try and see certain things as they are objectively?

This has to do with any kind of faith, not only Christianity. Even atheist worldview for example.

Or is it imperative to step over the higher conscious frontal cortex reasoning? I don’t know.

I’m not saying rejecting something outright only because it requires faith. A hypothesis is a healthy way to propose ideas that can be very true. I’m more interested in to what degree do you allow doubt? Or is doubt to be chased away as a double-minded man’s destructive waves?

Good thoughtful question.

For “hell” to be a real stick (threat) you have to believe in a Christian God, but if you believe in the Christian God you are heaven bound so how is “Hell” a threat to you any longer?

Hell’s purpose is not there to punish the wicked, that would do no good for the dead wicked person, but it does help some believing willing person to make a commitment sooner than later (there may be no later time).

God is not trying to get you to acknowledge His existence, for thus not wanting to Love God it would be hard on them to know God exists and thus “hell” exists, so He partially remain somewhat hidden to help those who never want to believe.

The littlest of faith is needed to believe in the existence of a god, since there is evidence all around us (a tree is evidence of God’s existence if we allow the tree to be evidence).

Faith is very humbling in that the lowliest person on earth can believe in a benevolent Creator. That “humility” is extremely important and needed coming from a humble faith in God, since that humility allows the person to accept pure undeserved charity as charity. The only way a person can accept God’s forgiveness is by accepting it as pure undeserved charity.

The sinner is burdened, at least until the heart is allowed to become hardened, by doing stuff the sinner has done in the past which has hurt others. The only true solution comes with God’s forgiveness.

Everything is driven by the objective, God is doing or allowing all He can to help willing individuals in fulfilling their earthly objective.

 

[James_Lai]

We would have to forsake everything physical and live a monastic life like those monks. However in the west we would be regarded as something less than 'holy'.

Is mystical experience reserved to hermits only? A regular layman can’t even attempt to touch any aspect of it?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is mystical experience reserved to hermits only? A regular layman can’t even attempt to touch to any aspect of it?

Perhaps they can, but I believe that is way down the list of spiritual needs that many in the church have (not judgin', just sayin'). Of course people are free to dabble in whatever they wish.

 

[James_Lai]

Perhaps they can, but I believe that is way down the list of spiritual needs that many in the church have (not judgin', just sayin'). Of course people are free to dabble in whatever they wish.

Why? What’s the point of religion if it’s only concerned with the material? Then we can ditch it and stay with science

 

[FutureAndAHope]

What if you were born in a Muslim or a Buddhist country? Would you find confirmation of your faith in life events?
At some point you learned and accepted Christian doctrines, from there you went on a journey to see if they are true or not and found proof of their veracity. The ideas that you hold firmly by faith, that can’t possibly be conformed or are yet to be manifested in your experience, do you question them? And if not, why? Never even a shadow of doubt?

For me there are a few things that cause me to not question my faith:

• The nature of love and forgiveness revealed by Jesus, and his disciples
• Miracles occurring in my life as I have sought Jesus according to scripture
• Internal consistency of my religion discussed below (posted from a message I posted else where):

So what I want to do is show the continuity of Christianity, or its flow from the OT through the new.

So what was the OT law? It was a set of commands laid down by God. But not just commands, there was also provision for forgiveness to be offered but only under strict condition. What were the conditions? Animal sacrifices had to be offered for sin. As an example:

Num 6:14-16 And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings, ….And the priest shall bring them before the LORD, and shall offer his sin offering, and his burnt offering:

So we see that sacrifices were needed to atone for sin. Without the shedding of these sacrifices there was no atonement for sin.

We see latter prophets predicted that a man would come who would be an offering for sin (this was 700 years before Christ), in the same way animals were sacrificed.

Isa 53:1-12 Has anyone believed us or seen the mighty power of the LORD in action? Like a young plant or a root that sprouts in dry ground, the servant grew up obeying the LORD. He wasn't some handsome king. Nothing about the way he looked made him attractive to us. He was hated and rejected; his life was filled with sorrow and terrible suffering. No one wanted to look at him. We despised him and said, "He is a nobody!" He suffered and endured great pain for us, but we thought his suffering was punishment from God. He was wounded and crushed because of our sins; by taking our punishment, he made us completely well. All of us were like sheep that had wandered off. We had each gone our own way, but the LORD gave him the punishment we deserved. He was painfully abused, but he did not complain. He was silent like a lamb being led to the butcher, as quiet as a sheep having its wool cut off. He was condemned to death without a fair trial. Who could have imagined what would happen to him? His life was taken away because of the sinful things my people had done. He wasn't dishonest or violent, but he was buried in a tomb of cruel and rich people. The LORD decided his servant would suffer as a sacrifice to take away the sin and guilt of others. Now the servant will live to see his own descendants. He did everything the LORD had planned. By suffering, the servant will learn the true meaning of obeying the LORD. Although he is innocent, he will take the punishment for the sins of others, so that many of them will no longer be guilty. The LORD will reward him with honor and power for sacrificing his life. Others thought he was a sinner, but he suffered for our sins and asked God to forgive us.

When Jesus came to earth. John the Baptist said:

John_1:29 The next day, John saw Jesus coming toward him and said: Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

So what is John referring to here, he was saying Jesus would be the lamb sacrifice to take away sins.

Jesus was crucified as an offering for sins, he died, and rose again.

The disciples described his death as being the same as the sacrifices in the old Testament.

Heb 9:19-28 Moses told the people all that the Law said they must do. Then he used red wool and a hyssop plant to sprinkle the people and the book of the Law with the blood of bulls and goats and with water. He told the people, "With this blood God makes his agreement with you." Moses also sprinkled blood on the tent and on everything else that was used in worship. The Law says that almost everything must be sprinkled with blood, and no sins can be forgiven unless blood is offered. These things are only copies of what is in heaven, and so they had to be made holy by these ceremonies. But the real things in heaven must be made holy by something better. This is why Christ did not go into a tent that had been made by humans and was only a copy of the real one. Instead, he went into heaven and is now there with God to help us. Christ did not have to offer himself many times. He wasn't like a high priest who goes into the most holy place each year to offer the blood of an animal. If he had offered himself every year, he would have suffered many times since the creation of the world. But instead, near the end of time he offered himself once and for all, so that he could be a sacrifice that does away with sin. We die only once, and then we are judged. So Christ died only once to take away the sins of many people. But when he comes again, it will not be to take away sin. He will come to save everyone who is waiting for him.

So we see a flow from the Old to the New Testament, by which God revealed the way to be forgiven from sin.

 

[Tolworth John]

Great. I understand your stand. Then my question to you, within the subject of this thread, do you question the things you accept by faith? If not, why?

I talk about only what is faith-based. I’m not talking about the knowledge you consider factual based on proof and investigation. Only what is seen by the eyes of believing

Because society rejects God and Christianity I am constantly being challenged by article, programes in the media and having to examine what I believe.

Faith is not a leap into the dark but an acceptance of what can be shown to be true.

example, Jesus rose from the dead. If you have a reasonable explaination I would cease to be a Christian. The reverse is true for you, why are you not a Christian if you cannot prove Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

 

[James_Lai]

For me there are a few things that cause me to not question my faith:

• The nature of love and forgiveness revealed by Jesus, and his disciples
• Miracles occurring in my life as I have sought Jesus according to scripture
• Internal consistency of my religion discussed below (posted from a message I posted else where):

So what I want to do is show the continuity of Christianity, or its flow from the OT through the new.

So what was the OT law? It was a set of commands laid down by God. But not just commands, there was also provision for forgiveness to be offered but only under strict condition. What were the conditions? Animal sacrifices had to be offered for sin. As an example:

Num 6:14-16 And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings, ….And the priest shall bring them before the LORD, and shall offer his sin offering, and his burnt offering:

So we see that sacrifices were needed to atone for sin. Without the shedding of these sacrifices there was no atonement for sin.

We see latter prophets predicted that a man would come who would be an offering for sin (this was 700 years before Christ), in the same way animals were sacrificed.

Isa 53:1-12 Has anyone believed us or seen the mighty power of the LORD in action? Like a young plant or a root that sprouts in dry ground, the servant grew up obeying the LORD. He wasn't some handsome king. Nothing about the way he looked made him attractive to us. He was hated and rejected; his life was filled with sorrow and terrible suffering. No one wanted to look at him. We despised him and said, "He is a nobody!" He suffered and endured great pain for us, but we thought his suffering was punishment from God. He was wounded and crushed because of our sins; by taking our punishment, he made us completely well. All of us were like sheep that had wandered off. We had each gone our own way, but the LORD gave him the punishment we deserved. He was painfully abused, but he did not complain. He was silent like a lamb being led to the butcher, as quiet as a sheep having its wool cut off. He was condemned to death without a fair trial. Who could have imagined what would happen to him? His life was taken away because of the sinful things my people had done. He wasn't dishonest or violent, but he was buried in a tomb of cruel and rich people. The LORD decided his servant would suffer as a sacrifice to take away the sin and guilt of others. Now the servant will live to see his own descendants. He did everything the LORD had planned. By suffering, the servant will learn the true meaning of obeying the LORD. Although he is innocent, he will take the punishment for the sins of others, so that many of them will no longer be guilty. The LORD will reward him with honor and power for sacrificing his life. Others thought he was a sinner, but he suffered for our sins and asked God to forgive us.

When Jesus came to earth. John the Baptist said:

John_1:29 The next day, John saw Jesus coming toward him and said: Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

So what is John referring to here, he was saying Jesus would be the lamb sacrifice to take away sins.

Jesus was crucified as an offering for sins, he died, and rose again.

The disciples described his death as being the same as the sacrifices in the old Testament.

Heb 9:19-28 Moses told the people all that the Law said they must do. Then he used red wool and a hyssop plant to sprinkle the people and the book of the Law with the blood of bulls and goats and with water. He told the people, "With this blood God makes his agreement with you." Moses also sprinkled blood on the tent and on everything else that was used in worship. The Law says that almost everything must be sprinkled with blood, and no sins can be forgiven unless blood is offered. These things are only copies of what is in heaven, and so they had to be made holy by these ceremonies. But the real things in heaven must be made holy by something better. This is why Christ did not go into a tent that had been made by humans and was only a copy of the real one. Instead, he went into heaven and is now there with God to help us. Christ did not have to offer himself many times. He wasn't like a high priest who goes into the most holy place each year to offer the blood of an animal. If he had offered himself every year, he would have suffered many times since the creation of the world. But instead, near the end of time he offered himself once and for all, so that he could be a sacrifice that does away with sin. We die only once, and then we are judged. So Christ died only once to take away the sins of many people. But when he comes again, it will not be to take away sin. He will come to save everyone who is waiting for him.

So we see a flow from the Old to the New Testament, by which God revealed the way to be forgiven from sin.

Thank you. Miracles in your life, could you tell what they are?