How can Jesus have born future sins?

[Clare73]

Good Day, Valletta

The Roman Church does not set out to determine..., The Bible is an historical established fact.
Proving Inspiration
Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.
We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

The Bible itself tells us it is God-breathed (theopnuestos)--2 Timothy 3:16.

The Roman Church tells it's members that the bible in inspired and they do so on their very own name it claim it fallacy. They expect their members to take their word for it some do and they do so IMHO in error.


In Him,

Bill

 

[Root of Jesse]

"He (as High Priest) sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself," (Hebrews 7:27) is not referring to Hebrew priests.

You need to be more specific in your posts, then. The verse you quoted says "who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the [sins] of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself." The bolded part was what I was referring to.
Aside from that, the verse says that Christ had no need to offer daily sacrifices, but I was referring to the one sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, which Catholic priests re-present. I don't dispute that Christ had no need to offer daily sacrifices.

"Christ (our High Priest) was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people," (Hebrews 9:28) is not referring to Hebrew priests.

Once again, slowly, we present a memorial of the one sacrifice. And I wasn't speaking of another verse, just the one you presented the first time.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I think that Bibilically, "This is my body, This is my blood" is about the sacrificial system rather than about a "real presence."

Key element...YOU think. But the Church says otherwise, and carries authority. You don't.

In the OT, the sinner participated, with the priest who offered it, in a sacrficial meal on the actual flesh of the sacrifice, wherein he
received within himself the benefits of that sacrifice--pardon of sin, peace, reconcilation and fellowship with God.

I think Jesus was saying that bread and wine would be the NT sacrificial meal on the actual flesh and blood of his sacrifice, wherein
we would partake/participate (1 Corinthians 10:16) in its benefits--pardon of sin, fellowship with God in a transforming
process as his sons, access to the throne of grace, promises of the New Covenant, etc.

Partaking of the actual sacrifice itself is much more in keeping with the Bibical presentation of, and practice regarding, sacrifice
than is "real presence."

Again, you think so, but then, you're not Catholic. Or Orthodox. We have the weight of all the fathers of the Church, and what they knew from the very teaching from Jesus mouth. Jesus never said that the bread and wine were that sacrificial meal. In fact, in John 6, He tells the disciples they must gnaw on his flesh, and only the apostles stayed with Him. He didn't go running after the disciples to tell them they misunderstood. Why? Because He said what he meant, and meant what He said.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Good Day, Valletta

The Roman Church does not set out to determine..., The Bible is an historical established fact.



Proving Inspiration

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

The Roman Church tells it's members that the bible in inspired and they do so on their very own name it claim it fallacy. They expect their members to take their word for it some do and they do so IMHO in error.


In Him,

Bill

In the 300's, the Church got together to determine what was, and what was not canonical, because there were many documents floating around claiming to be from the apostles, but were not actually. The determination of what was and what wasn't came down to what was used in liturgy from the beginning.

 

[Ligurian]

Were all Jews the sacrifice was made for saved?

The Book of Hebrews is really only about the sacrificial system. And Judah/Jerusalem did initiate that, because Isaiah 66 says so. But not all of Jacob is that two-tribed southern house of the divided kingdom of Israel. Jesus tells us He came to call sinners to repentence, which didn't include the southern house for which the sacrificial system still existed at that time. Jesus says He came only unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel, and so after John was imprisoned, Jesus began preaching the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven/God in Galilee, because apparently that was where the northern 10-tribed house called Israel existed within Palestine. And Jesus sends His Galilean Apostles to that same northern half of the divided kingdom in Matthew 10. And we know that this salvation came also to the Samaritans and to Sidon and Tyre by Jesus' travels.

The Passover ended on the cross when the last thing needed for Jesus to do in order to become the Lamb of God was to say, I thirst. Because the hyssop from John 19:28-30 is the hyssop from Exodus 12:21-27, which ends in the phrase: "This passover is a sacrifice to the Lord, as He defended the houses of the children of Israel..."

This same sort of Godly defence is what we see in the Greek word sozo = to save, deliver or protect, heal, preserve, do well, make whole. As we saw it in the Hebrew word rapha = to mend, to cure, to heal, physician, repair, make whole.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew 9:22 But Jesus turned Him about, and when He saw her, He said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

Isaiah 53:5 But He [was] wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.

John 8:31-32 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in My word, [then] are ye My disciples indeed;

 

[Ligurian]

I think that Bibilically, "This is my body, This is my blood" is about the sacrificial system rather than about a "real presence."

The New Covenant is given by Jesus through His flesh/word and His blood/life. The Passover-Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world, crushes the seed of the serpent by dying in order to bring the Resurrection of Life to those who will believe. This ends the Death that the devil brought into the world. When the dragon is cast to Earth in Revelation 12, the Death that rides the pale horse of Revelation is the devil's last ride... for a thousand years.

 

[pescador]

Key element...YOU think. But the Church says otherwise, and carries authority. You don't.
Again, you think so, but then, you're not Catholic. Or Orthodox. We have the weight of all the fathers of the Church, and what they knew from the very teaching from Jesus mouth. Jesus never said that the bread and wine were that sacrificial meal. In fact, in John 6, He tells the disciples they must gnaw on his flesh, and only the apostles stayed with Him. He didn't go running after the disciples to tell them they misunderstood. Why? Because He said what he meant, and meant what He said.

It is a serious error to quote Scripture out of context. Here is the relevant section from John 6 (with my emphases)...

I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that has come down from heaven, so that a person may eat from it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats from this bread he will live forever. The bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Then the Jews who were hostile to Jesus began to argue with one another, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood resides in me, and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread your ancestors ate, but then later died. The one who eats this bread will live forever.”

Clearly Jesus is not directing His followers to become cannibals (a concept that is utterly repugnant to everyone. Clearly the Jews misunderstood Him, as do many others who take this analogy literally.

Jesus mentioned bread nine times in the above story. He mentioned His flesh four times in between discussing bread. It is obvious that neither literal bread nor literal human flesh are meant by Jesus in His teaching.

 

[Clare73]

You need to be more specific in your posts, then. The verse you quoted says "who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the [sins] of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself."
The bolded part was what I was referring to.

I guess I assumed my bolded above made it abundantly clear.

Aside from that, the verse says that Christ had no need to offer daily sacrifices, but I was referring to the one sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, which Catholic priests re-present. I don't dispute that Christ had no need to offer daily sacrifices.Once again, slowly,
we present a memorial of the one sacrifice. And I wasn't speaking of another verse, just the one you presented the first time.

Other Catholics have emhatically informed me that it is a representation of the same sacrifice.
However, there is no Biblical warrant for either "memorial" or "representation."

There is warrant only, in the OT sacrificial system, for a continual partaking of the flesh and blood of the one atoning sacrifice for our sin.

And there is NT teaching that in the Lord's Supper "we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." (1 Corinthins 11:26)
.

 

[zoidar]

The Book of Hebrews is really only about the sacrificial system. And Judah/Jerusalem did initiate that, because Isaiah 66 says so. But not all of Jacob is that two-tribed southern house of the divided kingdom of Israel. Jesus tells us He came to call sinners to repentence, which didn't include the southern house for which the sacrificial system still existed at that time. Jesus says He came only unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel, and so after John was imprisoned, Jesus began preaching the good news of the Kingdom of Heaven/God in Galilee, because apparently that was where the northern 10-tribed house called Israel existed within Palestine. And Jesus sends His Galilean Apostles to that same northern half of the divided kingdom in Matthew 10. And we know that this salvation came also to the Samaritans and to Sidon and Tyre by Jesus' travels.

The Passover ended on the cross when the last thing needed for Jesus to do in order to become the Lamb of God was to say, I thirst. Because the hyssop from John 19:28-30 is the hyssop from Exodus 12:21-27, which ends in the phrase: "This passover is a sacrifice to the Lord, as He defended the houses of the children of Israel..."

This same sort of Godly defence is what we see in the Greek word sozo = to save, deliver or protect, heal, preserve, do well, make whole. As we saw it in the Hebrew word rapha = to mend, to cure, to heal, physician, repair, make whole.

Matthew 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Matthew 9:22 But Jesus turned Him about, and when He saw her, He said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

Isaiah 53:5 But He [was] wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.

John 8:31-32 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on Him, If ye continue in My word, [then] are ye My disciples indeed;

At the day of atonement, who were included in that sacrifice, not all Jews, only the northern kingdom?

 

[Valletta]

I guess I assumed my bolded above made it abundantly clear.
Other Catholics have emhatically informed me that it is a representation of the same sacrifice.
However, there is no Biblical warrant for either "memorial" or "representation."

There is warrant only, in the OT sacrificial system, for a continual partaking of the flesh and blood of the one atoning sacrifice for our sin.

And there is NT teaching that in the Lord's Supper "we proclaim the Lord's death until he comes." (1 Corinthins 11:26)
.

Good Day, Valletta

The Roman Church does not set out to determine..., The Bible is an historical established fact.



Proving Inspiration

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

The Roman Church tells it's members that the bible in inspired and they do so on their very own name it claim it fallacy. They expect their members to take their word for it some do and they do so IMHO in error.


In Him,

Bill

Good Day, Valletta

The Roman Church does not set out to determine..., The Bible is an historical established fact.



Proving Inspiration

Further, Christ said he would found a Church. Both the Bible (still taken as merely a historical book, not yet as an inspired one) and other ancient works attest to the fact that Christ established a Church with the rudiments of what we see in the Catholic Church today—papacy, hierarchy, priesthood, sacraments, and teaching authority.

We have thus taken the material and purely historically concluded that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Because of his Resurrection we have reason to take seriously his claims concerning the Church, including its authority to teach in his name.

This Catholic Church tells us the Bible is inspired, and we can take the Church’s word for it precisely because the Church is infallible. Only after having been told by a properly constituted authority—that is, one established by God to assure us of the truth concerning matters of faith—that the Bible is inspired can we reasonably begin to use it as an inspired book.

The Roman Church tells it's members that the bible in inspired and they do so on their very own name it claim it fallacy. They expect their members to take their word for it some do and they do so IMHO in error.


In Him,

Bill

 

[fhansen]

Scripture is clear on the meaning of the Lord's Supper--"we proclaim his death until he comes." (1 Corinthians 11:26)
Scripture is clear that the living Christ is in me. (Colossians 1:27) -- no need for a magical living "real presence" in the Lord's Supper.
Scripture is clear regarding the OT sacrificial system being the pattern for the NT atoning sacrifice.
Scripture is clear that the OT sacrificial meal on the sacrificed body was not of a living body.

What is "vague" (as in non-existent) is anything Scriptural about a living and "real presence" in the NT sacrificial meal of the Lord's Supper.
That notion is 100% an invention of man, and that he invented it 2,000 years ago does not give it credibility nor authority.

Christ's authority was always according to the word of God written. He spoke and did nothing that was not from the word of God.
There is no authority apart from the word of God written.
The word of God written is the judge of all truth and doctrine.
What is not in agreement with Scripture is not of God and is in error.

But I still love you.

Ok, glad to see someone has it locked down solid no other explanation possible, even if naively so and in spite of God's wisdom that's served simpler folk well for so many centuries. But we both understand and forgive you-and, yes, still love you too, of course. The church, BTW, in one of the Eucharistic prayers makes the proclamation:

"When we eat this bread and drink this cup,
we proclaim your Death, O Lord,
until you come again."

 

[Clare73]

Ok, glad to see someone has it locked down solid no other explanation possible, even if naively so and in spite of
God's wisdom that's served simpler folk well for so many centuries.

Wasn't that the justification for teaching salvation by faith through works, which I have been told has been abandoned in favor
of Ephesians 2:8-9--"faith without works," right?

But we both understand and forgive you-

as I forgive you, too. . .ew-w-w-w. . .fee-e-el the righteousness.

and, yes, still love you too, of course. The church, BTW, in one of the Eucharistic prayers makes the proclamation:

"When we eat this bread and drink this cup,
we proclaim your Death, O Lord,
until you come again."

That's good to know. . .now if it could just get down into the pews to change the focus from the personal piety of the "real presence" to the
gospel focus of the atonement. . .

You are just too knowledgeable for the usual layman.
Do any time apart from "laymanship?"

 

[zoidar]

Good Day, Zoidar

This begs a question..

Was the purpose of the OC sacrificial system that God instituted for the Jewish people for their (redemption) Salvation.

Clearly the answer is no.

But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption.


That is the function of Christ under the NC he secures an eternal redemption. Some thing that the Hebrews to who the letter is written cleary understood.

Go though and reread 7-10 of Hebrews it give a really full picture of the OC vs. the NC. You can find the work of J. Owens on line and that may assist you.

In Him,

Bill

J. Owens, a Calvinst. I normally don't read theological texts by Calvinists unless I want to compare them with other Christian texts. I have listened to John MacArthur on youtube and read a few texts by John Piper, but that is probably as far as I go. Why, because I disagree with the basic tenets. Also my interest to read a text is very much limited when written by someone identified as a Calvinist defender.

Something we could discuss is the purpose of the sacrifice of the day of atonement, but maybe that fits another thread?

Thanks for directing me to Heb 7-10. Reading it now. But it's not only to read it, but to interpret it right, which is the hard part (where we also most certainly will disagree).

Ok, I understand what you say. The sacrifice at the day of atonement was for people of Israel by inheritance and Jesus sacrifice is for the spiritual Israel, believers. I have thought about it and you may be correct to some degree. Jesus sacrifice has an atoning effect when someone receives him and becomes part of the spiritual Israel, it's them the sacrifice is for. Still Jesus by his sacrifice took all sin of every man on himself (I believe), yet not all receive him and become part of the spiritual Israel.

 

[fhansen]

Wasn't that the justification for teaching salvation by faith through works, which I have been told has been abandoned in favor
of Ephesians 2:8-9--"faith without works," right?

No, receiving Christ is not a work. It's a freely received gift.

 

[fhansen]

personal piety of the "real presence"

Not sure what that means

 

[Clare73]

No, receiving Christ is not a work. It's a freely received gift.

Not sure what that means

I'm not sure you understand what either one means.

'Stat-ue?

 

[Ligurian]

At the day of atonement, who were included in that sacrifice, not all Jews, only the northern kingdom?

The Judean/Jerusalem had the Kingdom of God
taken from them in Matthew 21:43 and Isaiah 65:15...
"I said, Behold, I am here, to a nation, who called not on My name."

Jesus is the Passover Lamb for all of these people,
and nations' multitude standing on the glass sea Revelation 15:2.

 

[fhansen]

I'm not sure you understand what either one means.

'Stat-ue?

So why not just explain it then? It's possible you don't understand what sacrament really means. And I don't know how "personal piety" applies to the Eucharist.

 

[fhansen]

as I forgive you, too. . .ew-w-w-w. . .fee-e-el the righteousness.

It was meant to cause the sensation of ...humor. Clare

You are just too knowledgeable for the usual layman.
Do any time apart from "laymanship?"

Well, I try not to be usual-or maybe I just don't have a choice in the matter. But my role model was a carpenter, of course, and they asked the same question about Him come to think of it. And while He knew much more, of course, I've studied quite a bit myself, as a sort of labor of love. Still lacking in many areas tho unfortunately.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I was out walking today, thinking about the sacrifice of Christ. Then this question arose, how Jesus could have born all sins that hadn't even been committed yet. How do you reason around this?

He died for our sins on a provisional basis. If this was not the case then all of mankind would be forgiven regardless of what they do.

Provisional Atonement (not "Limited Atonement").
(A 100% Work of God alone that can only be applied personally to an individual's life via by being saved by God's grace and Sanctification).
This is Jesus paying the price for the sins of the entire world so as to offer mankind the free gift of salvation (if they so choose to accept it); Note: Christ's resurrection (to give us a new body not tainted by sin one day), and the ascension to the Father (after Christ telling Mary not to touch Him), and his entering the holy temple by his blood (to be our Heavenly High Priest) is also included in the Provisional Atonement, too. (For Provisional Atonement verses, see: John 1:29, 1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:6, 2 Corinthians 5:19, Romans 5:6-8.) (Note: The best way to describe the Provisional Atonement is like a man who paid the price to pay off your debts by his handing you a check to be debt free; But it is up to you to receive the check, deposit it into your checking account, and pay off those you are in debt to; It's a gift, but like all good gifts in life, you have to receive the gift and use it properly to be of any benefit). Jesus provided an atonement, but it is up to us to receive it to personally apply to our lives by having a proper faith. Men will remain as sinners if they reject the Provisional Atonement of Jesus Christ.

To check out the other different aspects of salvation, see this thread here:

The Four Aspects of Salvation.