CONTRADICTIONS TO FACE IF YOU BELIEVE CHRIST PAID FOR SINS ON THE NEW TESTAMENT CROSS

[Eddie Ramos]

At the heart of the gospel is the death of Jesus Christ which was necessary to atone for sins as demanded by the law of God. And for centuries, it has been believed and still is by most, that Christ's death on the New Testament cross is when that payment was made. Any teaching that even suggests that this was not so, is immediately considered ludicrous and even blasphemous. But God told us that in the last days that he would reveal understanding from His Word that was kept sealed up all this time. And since the scriptures haven't changed, we know that God accomplished the limiting of our understanding the same way he kept it from his disciples when he spoke, what we now consider to be plain words.

Luke 9:44–45 (KJV 1900)
Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. 45 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.

Daniel 12:8–10 (KJV 1900)
And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed ***till*** the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

The "wise" in the scriptures are identified as the true children of God, whereas the wicked are not.

In this debate, I will hold to the position that Christ indeed died to pay for sins, but he did so before the world was created as per the scriptures. And that his birth, death and resurrection was a sign (a manifestation for us to see) pointing to his completed work from the foundation of the world.

Revelation 13:8 (KJV 1900)
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Hebrews 4:3 (KJV 1900)
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

2 Timothy 1:9 (KJV 1900)
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in (through) Christ Jesus before the world began,

Hebrews 9:25–26 (KJV 1900)
Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared (manifested) to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

I will also present some of the contradictions for examination for anyone who holds to the doctrine that Christ paid for sins on the New Testament cross. NOTE: I'm not saying that the scriptures contain ANY contradictions, because they don't. I'm saying that those who hold to atonement taking place on the N.T. cross face contradictions from the Bible that they must resolve.

If you believe that Christ paid for sins at the N.T. cross, then:

1. How could Christ be called the son of God, before the cross, if that name was given to Christ by him having raised rom the dead?

Romans 1:4 (KJV 1900)
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by (through) the resurrection from the dead:

2. How could Christ forgive sins before dying to pay for them, which would violate his own law?

Hebrews 9:22 (KJV 1900)
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission (no firgiveness).

Luke 7:48 (KJV 1900)
And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

FYI: Animal sacrifices or any high priestly Old Testament offering, never did anything for sins.

Hebrews 10:4 (KJV 1900)
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

Hebrews 10:11 (KJV 1900)
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

3. How could an Old Testament character be saved by grace, if grace "did not come until Christ died on the N.T. cross"? Furthermore, how could Noah be righteous (just) and without blemish (perfect) if Christ had not yet paid for his sins until thousands of years later?

Genesis 6:8–9 (KJV 1900)
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.
9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.

These questions will be enough to start for now. Thanks

[Eddie Ramos]

Ok, but if you provide no biblical correction, then how do we proceed from here? Have I put the wrong scriptures forth to answer your question? Which verse do you think is not being interpreted correctly and why? ...

Why add meanings that are not directly said? I think it is not necessary and can potentially lead to a wrong path. Bible shows Jesus had the right to forgive and he did that without any demand of blood. And also disciples of Jesus have the right to forgive sins and no blood required in the scripture.

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Whoever's sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. Whoever's sins you retain, they have been retained."
John 20:23

Obviously, Jesus died because of that and spilled his blood, which was known from the beginning that it will happen. But still, I don't think it can be supported by the Bible that God demanded that and could not forgive without that.

Meanings need to be added in order to interpret the scriptures, but not our own meanings as no part of the Bible is of any private (one's own) interpretation. The Bible itself is the one who explains what it means by what it says. If you approach the Bible in a straightforward manner and take is for what it plainly says, you will arrive at many incorrect doctrines and you will know that they are incorrect because the Bible as a whole will not agree with you. This is why the way we approach the Bible is the very foundation of our truth or lack thereof. So, are you able to show, from the Bible, where we are taught or instructed to take the Word of God at face value and for its plain meaning? If not, then how can you be sure that you are approaching the Bible correctly for your truth?

But God actually does teach us and instruct us how we are to approach his word and interpret it. And it's by comparing spiritual things with spiritual. Not literal with literal, or logical with logical. Thus, spiritual understanding is what we ought to be asking for in order to see just how many things we have had wrong for so long.

Colossians 1:9 (KJV 1900)
9 For this cause we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;

Regarding forgiveness without blood (death), how do you explain the entire Old Testament then? Are you aware that animal sacrifices were performed by the High priest on behalf of Israel on a daily basis. And for what purpose? Well, I showed you, but I have a feeling that you don't want to face those verses because they contradict your doctrine on forgiveness. Why ignore the fact that blood (a life) was required in order to make atonement?

Leviticus 17:11 (KJV 1900)
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

For someone wants to change what is directly said, can this verse get anymore direct? The blood (meaning a life) is what's required to make atonement. This was true before the world was even created. We have to keep in mind that the Bible is a book of law and God is the lawgiver. Not only that, but God has placed himself under his own law, so that we can be confident that he will never not do what his law says.

Psalm 138:2 (KJV 1900)
2  I will worship toward thy holy temple,
And praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth:
For thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

And God law states that the wages of sin is death. This means that without the shedding of blood (meaning death) there can be no forgiveness of sins. And this is the law of God.

Hebrews 9:22 (KJV 1900)
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission(forgiveness).

So, can there be forgiveness without the shedding of blood? You say yes, but why does the Bible disagree with you? Why did Christ say that his blood was for the forgiveness of the sins? Because that requirement was not exclusively for the Old Testament but for all time and even before there was time.

Matthew 26:28 (KJV 1900)
For this is my blood (which pointed to his death) of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Does this verse totally harmonize with the law of Hebrews 9:22? But the more difficult question is, does this disagree with your position? Since it does, then you have some serious things to consider in your doctrine and I hope you do. Now you did say something that I think is the reason I started this thread. You said, "Bible shows Jesus had the right to forgive and he did that without any demand of blood. And also disciples of Jesus have the right to forgive sins and no blood required in the scripture."

And this is what point #2 addressed in my OP. The law says (as I showed above) that forgiveness of sins cannot take place without the shedding of blood (death). Yet, as we read the gospels, we see Jesus doing what appears to be the very opposite. We see him forgiving sins without having gone to the cross yet and dying for sis, as he explained in Mat 26:28, the purpose for his death, which was to forgive sins. Yet we know that God could not violate his own law that we read in Hebrews 9:22. And neither did Christ offer any animal sacrifices when he forgave sins (as you said) and neither did any of his disciples as he gave them power to forgive sins. Yet we still have to contend with the problem of God's law written in Hebrews 9:22. This cannot be ignored, as this law was understood all the way back in the Old Testament, which is the very reason we read of so many sacrifices made by the high priests as they offered the blood of animals as God specifically instructed them, to make atonement for the sins of the people of Israel. And they did this for generations upon generations. But they never had the slightest idea that all those sacrifices never actually did anything for sins.

Hebrews 10:11 (KJV 1900)
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But why could those sacrifices never take away sins? I mean didn't God plainly say that those animal sacrifices were for the specific purpose of making atonement for sins? Yes he did.

Leviticus 16:27 (KJV 1900)
And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.

We know that all of those countless of daily sacrifices never took away sins because God confirms it for us.

Hebrews 10:4 (KJV 1900)
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

But now we have a much bugger problem. Not only did Jesus forgive without offering animal sacrifices, and before shedding his own blood on the cross for sins, but the problem goes all the way back to the fall of man. If animal sacrifices did nothing to atone for sins, and Christ hadn't died yet on the cross, the how could sins have been forgiven all that time without violating the law of Hebrews 9:22? The answer is because Christ actually died to pay for sins before the world ever began. In doing so, Christ met every demand that the law of God required for sins. And that's why he could and did forgive sins before dying on the cross, because the cross of the New Testament was only a manifestation ( a demonstration) of what had already taken place from the foundation of the world. This is why it didn't matter that the blood of animals couldn't take away sins, because that had already been accomplished in Christ from eternity past. The world then unfolded exactly as God had orchestrated in order to record His Word the Bible. This means that Israel, all along, was just going through the motions of that which pointed to the work Christ had already accomplished by his death.

Revelation 13:8 (KJV 1900)
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Hebrews 4:3 (KJV 1900)
For we which have believed do enter into rest (this is salvation), as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

2 Timothy 1:9 (KJV 1900)
Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in (through) Christ Jesus before the world began,

Hebrews 9:25–26 (KJV 1900)
Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he (Christ) often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared (made manifest) to put away sin ***BY*** the sacrifice of himself.

Every relevant verse in the Bible must be taken into account before we can be sure we have understood something correctly.

[Eddie Ramos]

In this debate, I will hold to the position that Christ indeed died to pay for sins, . . .

Two possible "deaths" are described in the Bible in regards to mankind.

Our first "death" is that of our physical bodies as they exist now. Every human being ever born will die this first "death":

And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Our second possible physical death comes after completion of the judgment -- as defined in the book of Revelation:

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Believers have their names written in the Book of Life and do not suffer this second death.

So the second death is the wages of sin, not our appointed first death.

I think we went over this same argument you made in another thread. But sadly, you are still posting the same things which means that you did not examine those scriptures I gave you to examine against what you are saying. That is why just about everything you have said is incorrect. Let's start with what you stated above. First, you neglected to factor in the death of the soul which is the death Adam and Eve experienced upon their sin.

Genesis 2:17 (KJV 1900)
But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Since Adam lived for 930 years, he clearly did not physically die the day that he ate thereof. Was God wrong? Of course not. As a matter of fact the serpent told Eve that she would not die the day she ate thereof. Well, if we're sitting back and watching the events of the garden unfiold, what would you have expected to see happen the day they sinned? You would have expected them to drop dead right? But that's not what happened. You see, God did not specify in what manner they would die, he only said that they would die that day, and die they did. Adam and Eve experienced a far worse death than a physical death, they experienced the death of their soul.

Ezekiel 18:4 (KJV 1900)
Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

This is the death that all men, because of Adam, have experienced. This is the death spoken of that all men are appointed to because all are conceived in sin and because all have sinned, all are conceived with a dead soul (meaning spiritually dead).

Romans 5:12 (KJV 1900)
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Romans 6:23 (KJV 1900)
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Hebrews 9:27 (KJV 1900)
And as it is appointed unto men (mankind) once to die, but after this the judgment:

Every single human being that has been conceived the natural way is born spiritually dead. Because of sin, this is the death mankind has been appointed to. Not to physical death as you proclaim because the Bible tells us that not everyone will physically die.

1 Thessalonians 4:15 (KJV 1900)
15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

No one who has been appointed once to die can escape from that death. Therefore the Bible contradicts the idea that physical death is the death appointed to all men.

Secondly, you keep misquoting Romans 6:23 to make it say that the wages of sin is the second death. I'm not sure which Bible version you are reading, but that's not what's written in the original Greek Text.

Romans 6:23 (KJV 1900)
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The wages (payment) for sin is death. This is the law that Jesus had to keep in order to satisfy its demands on behalf of his elect as he became sin for them. This is what it means to take our sins and nail them to his cross.

Colossians 2:13–14 (KJV 1900)
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

Now how can someone who is physically alive be dead in their sins? It's because the soul that sinneth it shall die. The second death, therefore, is when death itself is destroyed and the elect finally have their victory over death as they receive their immortal spiritual bodies which can never die.

1 Corinthians 15:54–55 (KJV 1900)
So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

In fact, after humans die their first "death" they are said to be asleep, slumbering, or resting in the Bible. There is no need to be saved from resting!

No where do the scriptures count the physical death of true children of God as "the first death" or as any number. But you're more than welcome to show us. The reason it isn't counted is because this death is temporary, that's why it's referred to as sleep. Moreover, Christ teaches us that physical death isn't even regarded as what we would deem death to be.

John 11:26 (KJV 1900)
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

The Pharisees thought they had him trapped in his words because of what he just said, but that's because they took his words at face value and were spiritually blind. The first death is the death all men are appointed to, but like the Bible shows, it's not our physical death, but rather our spiritual death.

"Whosoever was not found written in the book of life" in Revelation 20:14-15 describes those who do not believe in Jesus.

Those with their names in the Book of Life overcome the second death by gaining everlasting spiritual life:

He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

It is only the nonbelievers which suffer their second death:

But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

This is precisely what John 3:16 states:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Agreed.

Jesus' death on the cross was His first and appointed death due to His being born as a man:

And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

The wages for our sins is clearly defined as the second death!

You claim that "Christ indeed died to pay for sins."

To pay the wages of our sins, Jesus would have to have suffered the second death!

So, when was He cast into the lake of fire as you claim?

Again, this whole section is repeated from above and is incorrect due to your misunderstanding of what the second death is, what death mankind was appointed to and what the wages of sin actually is. This is leading you to conclude erroneous things that are contradicting your doctrines. Jesus' death on the New Testament cross was a manifestation ( a demonstration) of his death which took place from the foundation of the world. The law he met demanded death to pay for sins (Rom 6:23) and die he did.

Revelation 13:8 (KJV 1900)
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

All the works necessary for his elect to enter into his rest were finished at that time.

Hebrews 4:3 (KJV 1900)
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Christ died and, because he is Almighty God, death could not hold him and he rose from the dead having fully met the demands of his own law. The second death is for those who have never had their sins paid for by Christ but have to pay for their own sins by their own death. And since they are conceived with a dead soul, upon physical death they perish (like John 3:16 states) because they did not have everlasting life but remain under the wrath of God until they are cast into the lake of fire, which is a parabolic term (not a literal place) for total destruction. When death and hell are cast into the lake of fire, this is the end of the existence of everything that is evil.

[Purple Knight]

FYI: Animal sacrifices or any high priestly Old Testament offering, never did anything for sins.

Mmmhmm. I agree with you. But let's connect this next part.

Daniel 12:8–10 (KJV 1900)
And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? 9 And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed ***till*** the time of the end. 10 Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.

The "wise" in the scriptures are identified as the true children of God, whereas the wicked are not.

Now this is just a great big what-if, but what if this is all a great big game of find-the-liar? The wise will know him, right?



So let's use our wisdom. The blood of a goat cannot wash away the sins of a man. A goat is not equal to a man.

They why can the blood of another man, or a half-God* take away the sins of a man? Those things aren't equal either. Is Jesus somehow exactly equal to everyone who has ever, or will ever, live, and die, and sin? Are any number of men equal to a half-God? If so why can't I just use more goats? If I can't then numbers don't matter; if the things aren't equal then they aren't equal. No amount of goats will ever equal a person.
*(I know that's not the literal canon, I use the terminology for simplicity's sake)

And would a fair and just God demand a higher price than was necessary? Would he inflict more punishment and pain than was deserved?

Maybe he wouldn't, and the price of Bob's sins is not Sam, because even Sam is not equal to Bob. The price of Bob's sins must come from Bob. Only Bob is equal to Bob. People aren't fungible. People aren't interchangeable. Only Bob is exactly equal to Bob.

[1213]

...
Regarding forgiveness without blood (death), how do you explain the entire Old Testament then? Are you aware that animal sacrifices were performed by the High priest on behalf of Israel on a daily basis. And for what purpose? Well, I showed you, but I have a feeling that you don't want to face those verses because they contradict your doctrine on forgiveness. Why ignore the fact that blood (a life) was required in order to make atonement?

Leviticus 17:11 (KJV 1900)
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

For someone wants to change what is directly said, can this verse get anymore direct? The blood (meaning a life) is what's required to make atonement....

But shouldn't we understand these spiritually, not in materialistic way?

Sacrifices were performed and God gave the rules for how to perform them. But, I think it is wrong to say God demanded it. Sacrifice that is done on demand is not really a sacrifice, it is more like required exercise that has not much meaning. Proper sacrifice has a meaning, for example it can show that person regret that he has done wrongly and in a sign of that, he offers sacrifice. And in that case it can be seen acceptable, because it shows person truly regrets.

....Matthew 26:28 (KJV 1900)
For this is my blood (which pointed to his death) of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
...

And in that he is speaking of the wine.

...
Hebrews 10:11 (KJV 1900)
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But why could those sacrifices never take away sins? I mean didn't God plainly say that those animal sacrifices were for the specific purpose of making atonement for sins? Yes he did.

Leviticus 16:27 (KJV 1900)
And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.

We know that all of those countless of daily sacrifices never took away sins because God confirms it for us.

Hebrews 10:4 (KJV 1900)
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

But now we have a much bugger problem. Not only did Jesus forgive without offering animal sacrifices, and before shedding his own blood on the cross for sins, but the problem goes all the way back to the fall of man. If animal sacrifices did nothing to atone for sins, and Christ hadn't died yet on the cross, the how could sins have been forgiven all that time without violating the law of Hebrews 9:22? The answer is because Christ actually died to pay for sins before the world ever began. ...

"for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" is not the same as "the specific purpose of making atonement for sins".

Also, should we not notice that every human still dies once?

Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment,
Heb. 9:27

I think the Lev. 17:11 should be understood in the context that is speaking of eating blood. People should not eat it, that is why it was given orders how to deal with it. And when properly done, it atones one from committing the sin of eating blood.

‘Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who live as foreigners among them, who eats any kind of blood, I will set my face against that soul who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life.
Lev. 17:11

[myth-one.com]

The second death is for those who have never had their sins paid for by Christ but have to pay for their own sins by their own death.

Yes, as you admit, the wages of sin is the second death.

And the second death is when nonbelievers are cast into the lake of fire and quickly perish to pay the wages for their sins.

We agree.

Now, going back to how Jesus really saves us.

You claim that the wages of sin is death and Jesus' death on the cross pays the wages of sin for those who believe in Him as their Savior.

But you are now admitting (correctly) that the wages for our sins is the second death when cast into the lake of fire. You said, "the second death is for those who have to pay for their own sins."

I've been praying that God would open your understanding of those scriptures -- and I thank Him for answering my prayers!!

So, we are not saved because Jesus paid the wages for our sins, as we agree that the wages of our sins is the second death -- and Jesus certainly did not perish in the lake of fire.

<===========================================>
That being agreed on, then what really saves us?

We are saved because the man Jesus lived a sinless life under the Old Testament Covenant, thus becoming the only man to ever do so.

He then offers His inheritance of everlasting life received under the Old Testament to those humans who believe in Him as their Saviour under the New Testament Covenant. So that sin no longer controls our salvation:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I'm confident that you will now see that God's plan of salvation is infinitely better than one based on human torture and death.

You have made this a wonderful day for me! And I'm sure it takes a load of worry off of you.

I'll pray for God to let you understand His true Plan of Salvation for mankind!

Thanks.

[Eddie Ramos]

...
Regarding forgiveness without blood (death), how do you explain the entire Old Testament then? Are you aware that animal sacrifices were performed by the High priest on behalf of Israel on a daily basis. And for what purpose? Well, I showed you, but I have a feeling that you don't want to face those verses because they contradict your doctrine on forgiveness. Why ignore the fact that blood (a life) was required in order to make atonement?

Leviticus 17:11 (KJV 1900)
For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

For someone wants to change what is directly said, can this verse get anymore direct? The blood (meaning a life) is what's required to make atonement....

But shouldn't we understand these spiritually, not in materialistic way?

Absolutely. The materialistic ritual that was preformed for generations never did anything to atone for sins, even though the Old Testament text specifically stated that these animal sacrifices and offerings were in fact for the soecific purpose of atonement. Did God not mean what he plainly said? That's correct. That's why we have to interpret the Bible according to all that God has to say on the matter. All the Old Testament animal sacrifices and offerings only painted the spiritual picture of atoning for sins. But the actual atonement took place before the world began. But Israel was required to do it nonetheless.

Sacrifices were performed and God gave the rules for how to perform them. But, I think it is wrong to say God demanded it. Sacrifice that is done on demand is not really a sacrifice, it is more like required exercise that has not much meaning. Proper sacrifice has a meaning, for example it can show that person regret that he has done wrongly and in a sign of that, he offers sacrifice. And in that case it can be seen acceptable, because it shows person truly regrets.

But truth is not based on what you nor I think, but on what the Bible says. So neither of us can approach the Bible and interpret it in a way that would seem more logical to each of us. Differing doctrines are the result of differing logics. But there is only one truth. So, let's see if God actually demanded blood for atonement.

Hebrews 9:16-18 (KJV) 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood.

Hebrews 9:22 (KJV) 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

This is a verse that you still have not responded to that tells us (even in the context of the Old Testament) that forgiveness was not possible without bloodshed first.
And since forgiveness for sins was taking place since the fall of man even though animal sacrifices did nothing, that all this was possible only because a satisfactory death had already taken place from the foundation of the world in the person of Jesus Christ. I could show you many more examples if you'd like to show that sacrifices were indeed required and demanded, or the penalty was immediate death.

....Matthew 26:28 (KJV 1900)
For this is my blood (which pointed to his death) of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
...

And in that he is speaking of the wine.

That's correct. But is that all you see this verse saying. What about the forgiveness of sins? Wine certainly doesn't forgive our sins, but the wine was being used as a figure of Christ's blood. That's why Christ said it the way he did. In drinking the wine, Christ was likening that to his blood which was shed for many.....for what reason? For the forgiveness of sins.

...
Hebrews 10:11 (KJV 1900)
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

But why could those sacrifices never take away sins? I mean didn't God plainly say that those animal sacrifices were for the specific purpose of making atonement for sins? Yes he did.

Leviticus 16:27 (KJV 1900)
And the bullock for the sin offering, and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place, shall one carry forth without the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung.

We know that all of those countless of daily sacrifices never took away sins because God confirms it for us.

Hebrews 10:4 (KJV 1900)
For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.

But now we have a much bugger problem. Not only did Jesus forgive without offering animal sacrifices, and before shedding his own blood on the cross for sins, but the problem goes all the way back to the fall of man. If animal sacrifices did nothing to atone for sins, and Christ hadn't died yet on the cross, the how could sins have been forgiven all that time without violating the law of Hebrews 9:22? The answer is because Christ actually died to pay for sins before the world ever began. ...

"for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" is not the same as "the specific purpose of making atonement for sins".

Also, should we not notice that every human still dies once?

Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment,
Heb. 9:27

I think the Lev. 17:11 should be understood in the context that is speaking of eating blood. People should not eat it, that is why it was given orders how to deal with it. And when properly done, it atones one from committing the sin of eating blood.

‘Any man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who live as foreigners among them, who eats any kind of blood, I will set my face against that soul who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life.
Lev. 17:11

You are saying that if a person obeys the commandment of not eating the blood, that their obedience has atoned them from committing that sin? But how does the Bible define atonement, if not as the forgiveness of sins.

Leviticus 16:30 (KJV) 30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD.

Are you able to show any other type of atonement that is not for forgiveness of sins?

Now, we don't have to wonder or guess why God forbade the eating (consuming) of the blood of anyone. Because the animal's blood points to the life of Christ, and because animal's blood did nothing fir sins, it was forbidden. But Christ's flesh and blood was to be consumed by them that are his because they are one with God.

John 6:50-57 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.

Lastly, I saw you mentioned Hebrews 9:27 but I couldn't make the connection you were trying to make with your comment, so I couldn't respond to that part specifically.

[Eddie Ramos]

The second death is for those who have never had their sins paid for by Christ but have to pay for their own sins by their own death.

Yes, as you admit, the wages of sin is the second death.

And the second death is when nonbelievers are cast into the lake of fire and quickly perish to pay the wages for their sins.

We agree.

I’m sorry you think we are in agreement here, but that may be because you are only quoting a small portion of all that I said on this matter. Now, if you’re only quoting that which you understood from my previous reply in post #12, then I would be glad to explain it another way if need be. But I thought I was pretty clear that the wages of sin is not the destruction of death, but death itself. If you didn’t get that from my last reply, then I’m sorry that you misunderstood me. Let me know if you’d like me to explain further.

Now, going back to how Jesus really saves us.

You claim that the wages of sin is death and Jesus' death on the cross pays the wages of sin for those who believe in Him as their Savior.

I’m sorry, that’s also incorrect. I can only assume you’re reading what I have said rather quickly, Abe looking for what you want to see, but it may be more helpful if you copy and paste what I actually said. This way you’re not making me say what you think I’m saying. I never said that Jesus’ death on the cross pays for anyone’s sins. That’s what this whole thread is about. Neither did he pay for the sins of anyone who believes on him, but for the sins of those he chose to save only, the elect. And their sins are not paid for because they believe, but rather, they believe because they’re sins have been paid for.

But you are now admitting (correctly) that the wages for our sins is the second death when cast into the lake of fire. You said, "the second death is for those who have to pay for their own sins."

Thank you for quoting me, but you are still sorely misunderstanding what I’m saying. The second death is when death is destroyed, so this is not what Romans 3:16 is referring to. Christ did not suffer the destruction of death, he suffered death itself, as Romans 6:23 states.

I've been praying that God would open your understanding of those scriptures -- and I thank Him for answering my prayers!!

That’s what I pray for as well for myself as that is the most important thing to achieve proper doctrine. But I suspect what you’ve been actually praying for is to find someone who actually agrees with your whole doctrine of what the wages of sin is. But I can only do that if the Bible itself agrees with you, and I’ve been trying to show you from the scriptures why it doesn’t. And since you’re not addressing all the scriptures I gave you that show this, then it means that you’re just avoiding them. And that’s never good. Now, the point where I did agree with you, I agreed with that statement because the statement itself was correct, but not for the reasons you think it’s correct. And that’s why took the time (in post 12) to explain why.

So, we are not saved because Jesus paid the wages for our sins, as we agree that the wages of our sins is the second death -- and Jesus certainly did not perish in the lake of fire.

That being agreed on, then what really saves us?

The only correct part of this statement is the last part, that Jesus did not perish in the lake of fire, that’s because (as I’ve been trying to explain), the lake of fire is when death is destroyed, that means there is no more death once death and hell are cast into the lake of fire. Thus Christ did not suffer the second death. And I have no clue how you can blatantly reject that without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness. Or why Christ said that his blood was given for forgiveness of sins. I suppose I do have a clue as to why someone should do that, but as long as we seek the whole council of the Bible, we are able to prove any doctrine to be true or false.

We are saved because the man Jesus lived a sinless life under the Old Testament Covenant, thus becoming the only man to ever do so.

He then offers His inheritance of everlasting life received under the Old Testament to those humans who believe in Him as their Saviour under the New Testament Covenant. So that sin no longer controls our salvation:

For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

I'm confident that you will now see that God's plan of salvation is infinitely better than one based on human torture and death.

You have made this a wonderful day for me! And I'm sure it takes a load of worry off of you.

I'll pray for God to let you understand His true Plan of Salvation for mankind!

Thanks.

[Eddie Ramos]

Now this is just a great big what-if, but what if this is all a great big game of find-the-liar? The wise will know him, right?

So let's use our wisdom. The blood of a goat cannot wash away the sins of a man. A goat is not equal to a man.

They why can the blood of another man, or a half-God* take away the sins of a man? Those things aren't equal either. Is Jesus somehow exactly equal to everyone who has ever, or will ever, live, and die, and sin? Are any number of men equal to a half-God? If so why can't I just use more goats? If I can't then numbers don't matter; if the things aren't equal then they aren't equal. No amount of goats will ever equal a person.
*(I know that's not the literal canon, I use the terminology for simplicity's sake)

And would a fair and just God demand a higher price than was necessary? Would he inflict more punishment and pain than was deserved?

Maybe he wouldn't, and the price of Bob's sins is not Sam, because even Sam is not equal to Bob. The price of Bob's sins must come from Bob. Only Bob is equal to Bob. People aren't fungible. People aren't interchangeable. Only Bob is exactly equal to Bob.

When we speak of using our wisdom (your, mine or any others) to try and understand a spiritual book like the Bible, it simply cannot be done by the carnal man. The only way the spiritual level of the scriptures can be properly understood is by those who have the spirit of God within them. CArnal wisdom is what the Bible calls "the wisdom of this world" which is actually foolishness in regards to spiritual matters.

1 Corinthians 1:20 (KJV 1900)
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

1 Corinthians 3:19 (KJV 1900)
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

And God makes the wisdom of this world into foolishness when they try to read the Bible as it's plainly written and think they can come to a logical conclusion as to what truth is. It just doesn't work that way. God wrote the Bible with the specific purpose to conceal truth and cause confusion to those who approach it as a plainly written book.

Regarding the sufficiency of atonement. Even though God required Israel to go through the motions for centuries of offering sacrifices unto God to make atonement for sins, these sacrifices never actually did anything for sins. That's because when Adam and Eve sinned, sin and death passed upon all men, making each and every person conceived the natural way, a spiritually dead sinner. And according to God's law, (Rom 6:23) the wages of sin is death. And so because everyone was a sinner, God could justly condemn each and every human being for their sin and be perfectly righteous for doing it. This means that the whole world was guilty before the righteous judge of all the earth. But God, in His mercy, rather than let every human being perish in their own sins, God decided to save some people out of the human race and give them everlasting life. These people the Bible calls God's elect. These people were chosen not on merit, nor good works, nor on anything they would have ever done, but only by God's good pleasure.

Ephesians 1:5 (KJV 1900)
Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

But there was still a problem. God couldn't just forget the sins of all those he chose to save and ignore them as if they didn't exist. He couldn't do that because God bound himself to his own law which states that the payment for sin must be death. So, God in his infinite wisdom, decided to take those sins upon himself and pay the penalty the law of God required, which was death. And he did this in the person of Jesus Christ. And because death cannot hold God, he was able to meet the demands of his own law and pay for the sins of all his chosen people, making them guiltless forever.

So, who is this Jesus Christ, he is the one and only God himself, the creator of all things, the Almighty. He is one of the three persons of the Godhead, yet still one God. Again, not something a finite creature such as ourselves can grasp, but because God's true children implicitly trust every Word in the Bible, then we know that everything that we can possibly know about God has been revealed within those pages. And they reveal that Jehovah God took on human form in the person of Jesus Christ.

Jeremiah 23:5–6 (KJV 1900)
Behold, the days come, saith JEHOVAH, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. 6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he (Christ) shall be called, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

What causes mass confusion (by design) is the way God wrote the Bible when describing his deity of three in one and the way he speaks of the Christ and the way Christ speaks of God. So, some who join one type of religion will hold to and favor one set of verses and they ignore the others which oppose them. And this same thing is done by every religion. But when we are wiling to put all of the scriptural evidence together and see the whole picture, by having no contradictions between verses, but only harmony (agreement), then we can be sure we have found the truth.

[myth-one.com]

The second death is for those who have never had their sins paid for by Christ but have to pay for their own sins by their own death.

Yes, as you admit, the wages of sin is the second death. And the second death is when nonbelievers are cast into the lake of fire and quickly perish to pay the wages for their sins. We agree.

I thought I was pretty clear that the wages of sin is not the destruction of death, but death itself.

That's exactly correct. It will be the second death for those resurrected humans whose names are not written in the Book of Life following judgment. Also, salvation is now a gift of God, no one has to pay anything to accept a gift. Jesus did not save us by paying the wages of our sins. He saves us by giving us everlasting life. After receiving everlasting life, we cannot die -- thus we are saved from the wages of sin, which is the second death. We can swim in the lake of fire if we so desire.

The second death is when death is destroyed, so this is not what Romans 3:16 is referring to.

No, no Eddie!

You stated correctly above that the second death is death itself. Following judgment, those whose names are not written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire and perish, never to live again! The vast majority of these will have "died" their first physical death many years ago. Since they will have "died" once before, this will be their second and everlasting death.

When the last living human is either born again of the Spirit as a spirit or cast into the lake of fire and suffers the second death, that is the exact moment that death and hell (the grave) are destroyed!! Since there are no more human beings which can die, there is no longer any need for death or any graves! Thus death and the grave no longer exist at that time.

I have no clue how you can blatantly reject that without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness. Or why Christ said that his blood was given for forgiveness of sins.

Under the New Testament, salvation is based on belief in Jesus. Blood letting was tied to the law under the Old Testament Covenant-- which vanished away after Jesus' crucifixion.

[Eddie Ramos]

The second death is for those who have never had their sins paid for by Christ but have to pay for their own sins by their own death.

Yes, as you admit, the wages of sin is the second death. And the second death is when nonbelievers are cast into the lake of fire and quickly perish to pay the wages for their sins. We agree.

I thought I was pretty clear that the wages of sin is not the destruction of death, but death itself.

That's exactly correct. It will be the second death for those resurrected humans whose names are not written in the Book of Life following judgment. Also, salvation is now a gift of God, no one has to pay anything to accept a gift. Jesus did not save us by paying the wages of our sins. He saves us by giving us everlasting life. After receiving everlasting life, we cannot die -- thus we are saved from the wages of sin, which is the second death. We can swim in the lake of fire if we so desire.

The second death is when death is destroyed, so this is not what Romans 3:16 is referring to.

No, no Eddie!

You stated correctly above that the second death is death itself. Following judgment, those whose names are not written in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire and perish, never to live again! The vast majority of these will have "died" their first physical death many years ago. Since they will have "died" once before, this will be their second and everlasting death.

When the last living human is either born again of the Spirit as a spirit or cast into the lake of fire and suffers the second death, that is the exact moment that death and hell (the grave) are destroyed!! Since there are no more human beings which can die, there is no longer any need for death or any graves! Thus death and the grave no longer exist at that time.

I have no clue how you can blatantly reject that without the shedding of blood, there can be no forgiveness. Or why Christ said that his blood was given for forgiveness of sins.

Under the New Testament, salvation is based on belief in Jesus. Blood letting was tied to the law under the Old Testament Covenant-- which vanished away after Jesus' crucifixion.

Ok, so we're getting somewhere now. Before you held to the position that the only way to be saved in the Old Testament was to live a sinless life (which was obviously incorrect), but now you are acknowledging that "Blood letting was tied to the law under the Old Testament Covenant". So, what was this bloodletting for? It was for atonement of sins which never actually atoned for anything, but only pointed to Christ's atonement by his death, but not on the New Testament cross, rather from the foundation of the world.

Hebrews 9:15–28 (KJV 1900)
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. 18 Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people, 20 Saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath enjoined unto you. 21 Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

Let's pause here and recap what this passage is saying. Christ is the mediator by means of death for the redemption of transgressions (sins). How then can you say, "Jesus did not save us by paying the wages of our sins"? And verse 18 is including both testaments by saying "neither was the first testament dedicated without blood". This confirms that both testaments required death in order for the redemption of our sins. Verse 22 is therefore referring to both testaments because "the law" encompasses both Old and New Testaments.

James 2:12 (KJV 1900)
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.

John 12:48 (KJV 1900)
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

But let's continue with Hebrews 9.

23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these (the animal sacrifices were just patterns, of figures of the true sacrifice, Christ); but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these (and Christ is that sacrifice that all the Old Testament sacrifices pointed to). 24 For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others (In other words, Christ is a better high priest because he doesn't need to offer the blood of others like the Old Testament high priests did, because he offered his own blood, meaning his own life); (and the next verse tells us that if he was like the earthly high priests, then he would have suffered death often, but from when, not from the time of the New Testament cross) 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared (was manifested) to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


Why does this whole passage of Hebrews 9 speak of the necessity of Christ's death in order to bear our sins? And he did so from the foundation of the world, making the cross a manifestation of his completed work of atonement. In other words, the Old Testament "bloodletting" was always pointing to the true sacrifice that was required for atonement, which was the death of Christ before the world began bearing our sins and suffering death on behalf of his elect. So, was sin put away by Christ's sacrifice of himself? Was he offered us as a sacrifice to bear sins? You say no, but the Bible says yes. Who do you think is right?

1 Peter 2:24 (KJV 1900)
Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

So, the only reason you are still holding on to the notion that"Jesus did not save us by paying the wages of our sins" is because you are sorely misunderstanding what thew wages of sin is. It's not the second death, it's death itself. Christ bore the sins of his people and was condemned to death (hell/grave).

Isaiah 53:10 (KJV 1900)
10  Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief:
When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin,
He shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days,
And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.


Psalm 16:10 (KJV 1900)
10  For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell;
Neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

Now, Christ's soul didn't go to hell (the grave) when he died on the New Testament cross, his body went into the grave but his soul went to be with God in Heaven. This helps us confirm when Christ was made an offering for sin in order to make atonement. And it was actually made from the foundation of the world. And upon his payment for sins, he was then resurrected, and because he was resurrected, so will we be.