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

[myth-one.com]

How then can you say, "Jesus did not save us by paying the wages of our sins"?

I'm simply quoting the inspired words of God from the scriptures:

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

Humans are no longer under the law in regards to salvation under the New Testament Covenant!

Salvation is simply a gift of God:

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

We can have sins imputed against us and still accept Jesus as our Saviour and gain everlasting life!

[1213]

… 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.

The New Covenant that was made through Jesus was sealed with blood similarly as the previous that was done through Moses. In this new the blood was the wine. Testament to be valid, must be sealed and I think that is the point of the “blood” in this case, not forgiveness.

Atonement = compensation, reparation for a wrong or injury, or to fit something. Atonement seems to be about killing of the animal. When animal was killed, its blood must have been treated as said in the Bible, for that the killing would be atoned and blood would go as God wants it to go and would not be consumed by humans.

…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.

Please show one?

…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.

Sorry, I don’t think that is well supported by the Bible.

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. …

No, I meant that the point was to shed the blood so that people would not eat it. That way they atoned the killing of the animal and made sure they would not eat the blood. It made the meat clean for them.

[Eddie Ramos]

How then can you say, "Jesus did not save us by paying the wages of our sins"?

I'm simply quoting the inspired words of God from the scriptures:

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

Humans are no longer under the law in regards to salvation under the New Testament Covenant!

Salvation is simply a gift of God:

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

We can have sins imputed against us and still accept Jesus as our Saviour and gain everlasting life!

Quoting from the scriptures was used by Satan to try and deceive. Therefore, quoting from the scriptures does not mean that they are to be taken at face value, but must be compared with all other scriptures. So, there is a reason why sin no longer has dominion over the elect of God (not the whole world), it's because their sins were nailed to the cross of Christ from the foundation of the world. This is why we have come under grace, because no work we do could ever save us. So, your position of "Jesus did not save us by paying the wages of our sins", is contradicted by the scriptures. But I suspect you already know that, and yet just choose to ignore those scriptures.

"Jesus did not save us by paying the wages of our sins"
Matthew 26:28 (KJV 1900)
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.


"Jesus did not save us by paying the wages of our sins"
Ephesians 5:2 (KJV 1900)
And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

"Jesus did not save us by paying the wages of our sins"
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.

Also, the law was never a way to attain salvation, it always only condemned mankind after the fall. So, even in the Old Testament period, salvation was always by grace.

Ephesians 2:8 (KJV 1900)
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Genesis 6:8 (KJV 1900)
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

And there is no verse that teaches that we can accept Christ to become saved. That's something you heard somewhere but never checked it out to see if it was actually in the Bible. The Bible actually teaches the opposite, that Christ has made us accepted unto God.

Ephesians 1:6 (KJV 1900)
To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

[myth-one.com]

. . . your position of "Jesus did not save us by paying the wages of our sins", is contradicted by the scriptures.

The wages for our sins is the second death described in Revelation.

Jesus suffered His first death which is appointed to all mankind.

When did Jesus suffer the second death?

[Eddie Ramos]

. . . your position of "Jesus did not save us by paying the wages of our sins", is contradicted by the scriptures.

The wages for our sins is the second death described in Revelation.

Jesus suffered His first death which is appointed to all mankind.

When did Jesus suffer the second death?

If you continue to ignore from addressing my previous posts, where I already answered this question (more than once), then (as we did in another thread) we are just going in circles now. But I suspect that's what you were after all along. So, if you're not going to take the Word of God seriously, then at least say so, so I know where you stand and can spend my time discussing the scriptures with those who are actually interested in examining and commenting on the scriptures given to them. Thanks.

[myth-one.com]

. . . your position of "Jesus did not save us by paying the wages of our sins", is contradicted by the scriptures.

The wages for our sins is the second death described in Revelation.

Jesus suffered His first death which is appointed to all mankind.

When did Jesus suffer the second death?

If you continue to ignore from addressing my previous posts, where I already answered this question (more than once), then (as we did in another thread) we are just going in circles now. But I suspect that's what you were after all along. So, if you're not going to take the Word of God seriously, then at least say so, so I know where you stand and can spend my time discussing the scriptures with those who are actually interested in examining and commenting on the scriptures given to them. Thanks.

In other words, you have no answer.

[JehovahsWitness]

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

Jesus himself explicitly stated that he was God's son well before his death and resurrection; indeed Galatian 4 verse 4 says “ God sent forth his Son, who came to be out of a woman.” so "Jesus" (The Word), as God's first and foremost creation can accurately be thus refered even before his birth as a human and well before his death and subsequent and resurrection as God's son*.

* angels, Israelites, even the man Adam are all called "sons of God" in the sense that they are all Gods creation.

So in what sense did Jesus become Gods son at his resurrection?

If we examine the context of Paul's words in Romans chapter 1, he was not speaking of Sons of God in the general sense of being one of Gods creations, rather Paul was speaking about being a son in a special sense, a sense that is shared by all spirit anointed born again Christians. Notice this sonship was not as a result of being born as a human (see verse 3) but concerned being {quote} "declared God’s Son according to the spirit".

As a human Jesus' natural inherience would have been to live on forever on earth; only by being given a special promise of life in heaven could Jesus the man be considered Gods spirit Son . When Jesus was baptised he was "born again" into that promise("I now consider you as one of my spirit children) but only when he was resurrected as a mighty spirit creature did he actually become what was promised , namely one of God's spirit Sons, like the angels in heaven.

So Jesus the man as Gods son in the sense that his life was a direct result of an action by YHWH (Jehovah) God but he became God’s Son according to the spirit after his death and resurrection when he was raised as a spirit.








JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

To learn more please go to other posts related to

ANGELS , THE HEAVENLY CALLING and ....THE RANSOM SACRIFICE

[Eddie Ramos]

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

Jesus himself explicitly stated that he was God's son well before his death and resurrection; indeed Galatian 4 verse 4 says “ God sent forth his Son, who came to be out of a woman.” so "Jesus" (The Word), as God's first and foremost creation can accurately be thus refered even before his birth as a human and well before his death and subsequent and resurrection as God's son*.

* angels, Israelites, even the man Adam are all called "sons of God" in the sense that they are all Gods creation.

So in what sense did Jesus become Gods son at his resurrection?

If we examine the context of Paul's words in Romans chapter 1, he was not speaking of Sons of God in the general sense of being one of Gods creations, rather Paul was speaking about being a son in a special sense, a sense that is shared by all spirit anointed born again Christians. Notice this sonship was not as a result of being born as a human (see verse 3) but concerned being {quote} "declared God’s Son according to the spirit".

As a human Jesus' natural inherience would have been to live on forever on earth; only by being given a special promise of life in heaven could Jesus the man be considered Gods spirit Son . When Jesus was baptised he was "born again" into that promise("I now consider you as one of my spirit children) but only when he was resurrected as a mighty spirit creature did he actually become what was promised , namely one of God's spirit Sons, like the angels in heaven.

So Jesus the man as Gods son in the sense that his life was a direct result of an action by YHWH (Jehovah) God but he became God’s Son according to the spirit after his death and resurrection when he was raised as a spirit.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

I can see that the first 2 quotes above are mine, but I'm not sure if the rest of the information you provided is your own or someone else's. So, I will assume that it is all your position and answer accordingly.

In your first paragraph you stated, "Jesus himself explicitly stated that he was God's son well before his death and resurrection". And that is true. As a matter of fact, we read of many verses where Christ is called the Son of God. But just because Galatians 4:4 says that God sent forth his son out of a woman doesn't mean that this invalidates what the scriptures declare took place first before he could be declared to be the Son of God.

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

Christ was declared to be the Son of God by means of his resurrection from the dead. But now that makes no sense if we can obviously read of many scriptures (including Galatians 4:4) where he is declared to be the Son of God before dying and resurrecting at the New Testament cross. And the answer is the reason for this thread. It's because Christ had already died and rose again before the world began.

Now he could be declared to be the Son of God at anytime throughout the Bible and it would pose absolutely no contradiction with any passage. His resurrection at the New Testament cross wasn't the resurrection Romans 1:4 was referring to.

Also, angels (the ministering spirit kind) are never called Sons of God. That is another major theological misunderstanding because it contradicts this verse:

Hebrews 1:5 (KJV) 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

All angels were created beings, only the elect of God, in Christ, are begotten as sons.

[JehovahsWitness]

All angels were created beings, only the elect of God, in Christ, are begotten as sons.

A UNIQUE SON OUT OF ALL GODS SONS

Jesus was not the only son but he is the only one of many God's many sons to occupied a unique position. Only Christ is refered to as Gods only begotten son [singular] . The Greek word translated into the English only begotten is monogenes

The Greek word mo·no·ge·nesʹ is defined by lexicographers as “single of its kind, only,” or “the only member of a kin or kind.” (Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, p. 417; Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, 1968, p. 1144) The term is used in describing the relation of both sons and daughters to their parents.he is - Bible Encyclopedia "Insight on the scriptures" Vol II p. 556

* NOTE: All spirit born again Christians become sons of God but only Jesus can be refered to the " monogenes" the son out of all the'others that is unique.


JW





RELATED POSTS

In what sense is Jesus "The last Adam:?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 50#p959850

Is Jesus the YHWH of the "old testament"?
viewtopic.php?p=872828#p872828

Why is Jesus called the "only-begotten" son of God?
viewtopic.php?p=1090278#p1090278

Why is Jesus called the "only-begotten" son of God? (Tigger)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 51#p786451

Is JESUS MICHAEL the archangel?
viewtopic.php?p=780486#p780486

To learn more please go to other posts related to

JESUS , HIS TITLES and ...MESSIANIC PROPHECY

[myth-one.com]

All angels were created beings, only the elect of God, in Christ, are begotten as sons.

All spirit born again Christians become sons of God but only Jesus can be refered to the " monogenes" the son out of all the'others that is unique.

And don't forget the ladies.

All believers will be born again of the Spirit as spiritual children of God:

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ ... (Romans 8:16-17)

Although there are no genders in the Kingdom of God, it could be said that God will have many sons and daughters.