Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Searcher56 | 19702 | ||
Leviticus 16:27-34 is the context. Looking at verse 34, it says it is a permanent statute ... but how does that line up with what the Lord did? How does that effect other permanent statutes of the OT? Hebrews 10:4 say "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Is their a contradiction? |
||||||
2 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Bill Mc | 19705 | ||
Steve, Very interesting. You are correct. Lev 16:29 says that the day of atonement is a permanent statute. And vs. 31 implies that the sabbath is a permanent statute. And vs. 34 again says that the animal sacrifices indeed are a permanent statute. Hebrews is evidently wrong. If Christ had known about these verses, He probably never would have died. He should have stayed in the temple when His parents went back to Jerusalem. Then maybe He would have read these verses and discovered that He didn't need to die after all. What a shame! Congratulations! You have found the one verse in the Old Testament that completely invalidates the New Testament and what Christ has done. It must give you a great deal of satisfaction to prove God and the Bible wrong. Thanks for enlightening us. Now we can all get off this New Testament kick and get back to our animal sacrifices. Free at last, Bill Mc |
||||||
3 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19820 | ||
An admonition.................................... Dear Bill Mc, I was dissapointed by this post that you wrote. You have had many distinguished posts that I have read. Sometimes we agree, sometimes not, but you are usually respectful in what you write. However, in this post, I observe nothing but sarcasm. There is no answer given to the question, but instead just insults and condesention. I do not think that Steve was trying to disprove the New Testament. It seems like his motives were to find an explanation for an APPEARANT contradiction so that others would not be led astray by it. I think that is a great goal, and would hope that you would also see the value in it. I also hope that upon reflection on this post of yours that you would be able to see that it was unnecessarily negative, and find it in your heart to apologize. |
||||||
4 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Bill Mc | 19829 | ||
Dear Sir Pent, Although I cannot gauge what Steve's true motives are, I can state what his conclusions are from his own posts. You state that you believe that he is seeking to get others to resolve an apparent contradiction between the OT and the NT. He states what his goal is in a related post: "Second, we are not free from the OT Law, just its punishment ... as already pointed out in other post." And he has stated in another recent post: "While some people want to categorize them..." (Here he is refering to the distinctions between the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law embodied in the words 'the Law') "the Bible does not." Therefore, I feel that he is seeking to reinstate the Law as a means of justification and sanctification. The majority of the New Testament writings were written to demonstrate the neither Jew nor Gentile can be justified or sanctified by keeping the Law. We are justified and sanctified by Christ alone. To advance the view that "we are not free from the OT Law", when so much of the NT refutes this, is error. If one is going to be under the Law, one must be under ALL of it - moral, ceremonial, and civil. The Law is not an 'a la carte' where you can pick and choose what parts you want to keep. This is the point that I was making with my sarcasm. As long as Steve purports that we are all under OT law, I will not rescind my comments. I'm sorry, brother, that we cannot agree on this issue. But to try to put those under grace back under the Law from which Christ has set us free demonstrates that one does not truly understand the purpose of the Law or what Christ has done. In Christ, Bill Mc |
||||||
5 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Bill Mc | 19832 | ||
Sir Pent, one other comment if I may. It is not with a spirit of self-righteousness that I posted my sarcasm. My righteousness is found in Christ and Him alone, not myself nor my ability to keep the Law. It is with a spirit of sadness that I responded with sacrcasm. Despite all the wonderful posts here on this BB stating what the work of Christ has accomplished, some will still teach their own brand of Judaism. That it would be tolerated and encouraged for the sake of 'keeping the peace' shocks me. While I would agree that those of the Jewish faith might come here occasionally seeking answers, they would need to be shown the truth in love. To them I would say that indeed the Messiah has come and they would need to turn from their tutor, the Law, a shadow, to the exact representation of God in Jesus Christ - the reality. But to tell them that they need Christ and are still under the OT Law, as Mr. Butler insists, is Galatianism and needs to be confronted. And it has been, at length. In many prior posts, Bible-believing Christians have shown with scriptural support that Christ alone is our redemption, reconciliation, justification, sanctification, and righteousness. Is this forum about the completed work of Jesus Christ, "It is finished", or is it about a return to Judaism? If we are here to reinstate Judaism then, as I said, I am greatly saddened that Christ's very bride, the church, is turning from the 'good news' to another gospel that is really no gospel at all. In Christ and Him alone, Bill Mc |
||||||
6 | Does it take away sins or not? | Lev 16:34 | Sir Pent | 19837 | ||
Clarification .................................... Dear Bill Mc, It seems that you might have misunderstood my previous post. I am sorry for not being clear enough. I am NOT defending Judaism for the sake of "keeping the peace". In fact, I am not defending Steve's view on the Old Testament at all. I am purely focusing on the nature of your response to the original post. It seemed to me to be very negative, sarcastic, and off-topic. I feel that it is an inappropriate way to respond whether we disagree with a person or not. I would also say that whether your post was meant to convey "self-righteousness" or "saddness" is beside the point that it was potentially hurtful. So to clarify, I am not defending Steve's position, I am asking you to reflect on whether Jesus would be pleased with your response to it. |
||||||