William wrote:
shnarkle: There is no need to seek a consensus when it comes to the manuscripts themselves. My claim stands, and is easily verified by looking at the manuscripts themselves. There simply is no "is" in the sentence. It doesn't matter if there is a consensus because it makes the most sense to point out that it is the church that judges its members, rather than the previously stated "man", e.g. "let no man judge you....etc."
William:I myself was not arguing that the church should or should not judge its members.
I was arguing that Jesus is the Judge, not you or I or any member of any Church.That is why I wrote what I did, in reply to the Thread Topic.
The church is given an awareness of God's judgment. Those sins God forgives are forgiven, and the church forgives those God has forgiven. Those sins God retains, the church retains as well
Your immediate concern with the above was that Jesus never Judged himself "Guilty".
In relation to the whole story, it can be seen that The Father told Jesus that it had to be that way, because Jesus made it the Law in the first place.
If The Father told Jesus that is the way it must be done, and Jesus informs us through the Disciples, that he is doing what The Father requires, then one is free to interpret that as some kind of guilt which required some kind of sacrifice , according to the Law, which Jesus implemented.[/quote]
To be counted guilty is not the same as actually being guilty. To pay the penalty for guilt does not make one guilty. Even in our own judicial system we see examples of people who are convicted, and serve a sentence, but are later found to be innocent of all charges. Likewise, Christ is innocent of all charges that are leveled against him. He pays the penalty for the guilt of others without ever being guilty.
Jesus paid the price and Jesus therefore is The Judge. The only Judge.
Non Sequitur. Paying the penalty for sin is not what makes him the judge. Jesus is the Judge who pays the penalty.
Jesus cannot 'die'...the best that he can do is to go through those motions of dying, feeling alone and betrayed, feeling abandoned. Feeling vulnerable and misunderstood et al.
That aspect of the story was finished in his experience of dying a human death.
The new aspect of the story then began...The demand was for a holy sacrifice, and Jesus obliged.[/color]
If Jesus didn't die then death isn't the penalty for sin. Jesus paid the penalty for sin which is death.
We can both agree that Jesus may indeed not really have judged himself "Guilty" but his actions generally give one that impression, and the impression itself is not in itself..."Wrong" to understand it in that manner.[/color]
That's like saying, it isn't wrong to view an innocent person guilty just because they are judged guilty and pay the penalty. You're conflating a legal distinction. Jesus never plead or admitted any guilt. In modern parlance it is referred to as 'no contest". He isn't contesting the verdict, but this isn't an admission of guilt. To admit guilt is to plead "guilty".
shnarkle: Okay, let's assume your correct, then Jesus was a sinner guilty of actually sinning, hence his sentence of guilt.
William:Not according to The Law that Jesus had given to Humans.
Then we're in agreement that Jesus is not guilty.
The guilt may lie in how the Son represented The Father...specifically how the idea of GOD was represented.
We are not informed specifically why The Father convinced Jesus in being the final blood sacrifice.
Jesus doesn't represent an idea. We know why because we are told that the penalty must be paid in order to fulfill all righteousness. This is how humanity is reconciled to God. We know specifically why, it is because he is sinless. Sinlessness cannot be equated with guilt.
From our Human perspective, under the Law Jesus imposed upon Humans, Jesus is "Not Guilty". The Laws which Jesus placed on Humans are not Laws Jesus is under obligation to uphold himself.
You're confusing an obligation to keep a law with being under the penalty of the law due to transgressing it. 'under the law" does not mean one is obligated to keep it. IT means one is under the "curse" of the law because one has transgressed it. One is under the penalty because one is a transgressor. Being under the law also means that one must rely upon Christ's sacrifice to cover one's sins. Jesus keeps the law because he is not just a new creation, but because he is life itself, and there is no sin in life. God's will (i.e. God's law) is synonymous with life, and as he says, "Those who keep the law will live"
He chose to, apparently under The Fathers instructions.
The individual who believes that they are guilty of sinning, is encouraged to believe that Jesus paid the price, and took on that guilt,
To a certain extent, I agree with you because until one is convicted by the Holy Spirit, they can only make this attempt to believe they are sinners. When they are convicted by the Holy Spirit, they become aware of their sin, and readily accept the gift of repentance which allows them to see and believe in the redemptive power of God. When one becomes a new creation, it's difficult to reject or disbelieve what is self evident.
shnarkle:Taking on guilt is not the same as being guilty.
The sacrificial system does not judge the sin offering as guilty, but instead places the sin upon them. The sin offering must be "without blemish" or it can't be used for the sacrifice. It is unqualified if it is "guilty".
William: Not in terms of The Law Jesus created for Humans...Jesus is not some ignorant beast of the field which has no say in that matter.
The bible refutes that claim:
The Script: He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth
shnarkle:This is what qualifies him as the sin offering. It is what allows the sin of the world to be placed upon him. This doesn't make him guilty, it only shows that he must pay the penalty for the guilty. He is marked or counted with the transgressors, but he is not, and never will be guilty.
William: He remained silent, not because of his own ignorance.
I never claimed he was ignorant.
The whole point of the argument is that Jesus took on the guilt,
No, the whole point is that he paid the price because only his innocence qualifies him to pay the price.
therefore,those who believe, are not under condemnation, and no Church has the right to Judge and condemn.
Except of course Christ's body which is the church. the church is given the same power Christ has which is to see God's righteous judgment, and be a conduit for that judgment.
the Church has no authority to Judge.
I agree, but that's not really what I'm pointing out. What I'm showing is that Paul points out that it is the church who judges its members according to God's judgment. Paul contrasts this with "let no man judge" which is a reference to those outside the church who have no awareness of God to begin with. The church is given an awareness of the righteous judgment of God.
"those sins you shall retain, they are retained, and those sins you shall loose, they are loosened"[/color]
William:Where does Matthew state this?
Matthew 16:19
If Jesus died for the sins of Humanity, why would he give anything the authority to pick and choose which 'sins' his sacrifice covers,which do not and why?
I'm not saying that to begin with. I'm simply pointing out that whatever sins are forgiven or retained, are then forgiven or retained by the church. This is what Matthew and the other gospel writer is saying.
Did Matthew say which sins these were?
Luke does:
Father forgive them for they know not what they do Luke 23,34
It is only those sins committed in ignorance that are forgiven by sacrifice. This is a fundamental principle of the Mosaic law which is the only law Christ came to fulfill. All other sins are intentional, and are never remedied by sacrifice. When one sins intentionally, they must repent instead. The author of Hebrews affirms this in 10:26
More to the point, sins which are 'retained' are held onto. Sins which are let loose, and sins not held on to.
Do you think that the writer was trying to convey that not all sins were covered in the sacrifice of Jesus?
Most definitely. Jesus even points out that there is such a thing as 'the unforgivable sin" which is to view that which is good as evil.
