Temporary Sin Bearer Or Eternal Sin Bearer

[SacredBishop]

If Jesus bore the sins of humanity, why does his death absolve him of bearing them still? Shouldn't he bear them for always? A perpetual burden for perpetual redemption? Did his resurrection free him from absorbing sin into himself, or did his death? If his death is the merit of redemption, then he should stay dead for always. A perpetual death for perpetual redemption. If his life was the means to bear sin, then he should never have died, a perpetual continuity of bearing sin. If his resurrection enables him to continually bear sin, then back we go.

[Miles]

If Jesus bore the sins of humanity, why does his death absolve him of bearing them still? Shouldn't he bear them for always? A perpetual burden for perpetual redemption? Did his resurrection free him from absorbing sin into himself, or did his death? If his death is the merit of redemption, then he should stay dead for always. A perpetual death for perpetual redemption. If his life was the means to bear sin, then he should never have died, a perpetual continuity of bearing sin. If his resurrection enables him to continually bear sin, then back we go.

Is it said somewhere that his death absolved him of bearing such sins? Seems to me if that's all he was good for he may as well have stayed home and remained a carpenter.

.

[SacredBishop]

If Jesus bore the sins of humanity, why does his death absolve him of bearing them still? Shouldn't he bear them for always? A perpetual burden for perpetual redemption? Did his resurrection free him from absorbing sin into himself, or did his death? If his death is the merit of redemption, then he should stay dead for always. A perpetual death for perpetual redemption. If his life was the means to bear sin, then he should never have died, a perpetual continuity of bearing sin. If his resurrection enables him to continually bear sin, then back we go.

Is it said somewhere that his death absolved him of bearing such sins? Seems to me if that's all he was good for he may as well have stayed home and remained a carpenter.

.

Maybe he should have remained a carpenter. I'm simply trying to wrap my mind around classic theology. Stage 1: He bore the sins of humanity. Stage 2 He died for sins. Stage 3: He's not dead anymore. The third stage is perpetual, but the first two are are not, yet they're given perpetual merit nontheless.

[brunumb]

[Replying to SacredBishop in post #1]

I'm prompted to ask HOW did Jesus take the sins of the world onto himself? Just what was involved and what where the demonstrable signs that he had actually done so? It's become so common to hear the claim that maybe people never give pause to think about such questions. Maybe believers don't care because it sounds so magnanimous and any plot holes might bring their house of faith tumbling down.

[SacredBishop]

[Replying to SacredBishop in post #1]

I'm prompted to ask HOW did Jesus take the sins of the world onto himself? Just what was involved and what where the demonstrable signs that he had actually done so? It's become so common to hear the claim that maybe people never give pause to think about such questions. Maybe believers don't care because it sounds so magnanimous and any plot holes might bring their house of faith tumbling down.

Perhaps, Jesus thought every sinful thought and committed every sinful deed. Otherwise God played a game of make-believe. I'll pretend you actually thought every sinful thought and actually committed every sinful deed. Perhaps, God pretended Jesus was like a sponge absorbing every spill. A theological game of make-believe.

[1213]

If Jesus bore the sins of humanity, why does his death absolve him of bearing them still? Shouldn't he bear them for always? A perpetual burden for perpetual redemption? Did his resurrection free him from absorbing sin into himself, or did his death? If his death is the merit of redemption, then he should stay dead for always. A perpetual death for perpetual redemption. If his life was the means to bear sin, then he should never have died, a perpetual continuity of bearing sin. If his resurrection enables him to continually bear sin, then back we go.

Maybe it would be good to understand, in the Bible the reason why Jesus was allowed to die is this:

For to this end Christ died, rose, and lived again, that he might be Lord of both the dead and the living.
Romans 14:9

It was not necessary him to die for to make forgiveness possible, because he had the right to forgive already before his death.

He entered into a boat, and crossed over, and came into his own city. Behold, they brought to him a man who was paralyzed, lying on a bed. Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, “Son, cheer up! Your sins are forgiven you.” Behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man blasphemes.” Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, “Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk?’ But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...” (then he said to the paralytic), “Get up, and take up your mat, and go up to your house.” He arose and departed to his house.
Matt. 9:1-7

That is why I think your idea of "bearing sins" is wrong.

[JehovahsWitness]

If Jesus bore the sins of humanity, why does his death absolve him of bearing them still? Shouldn't he bear them for always? A perpetual burden for perpetual redemption?

Sin is not like a suitcase, you have to carry around or send back; its more like a mortage, once you pay it off, its gone.

HOW DID JESUS BEAR ("PAY OFF")THE SINS OF THE WORLD?

Jesus paid for our sins with his life. This is why the bible speaks of it as a RANSOM (a ransom is the price one pays to set a captive free ortherwise they die) see from 2"00 mins in the 4 min video below.





RELATED POSTS


Would Jesus need to "stay dead" for the Ransom to be valid?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 80#p875280

For more details please go to other posts related to...

ADAM &EVE, ORIGINAL SIN and ...RANSOM

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to SacredBishop in post #1]

I'm prompted to ask HOW did Jesus take the sins of the world onto himself? Just what was involved and what where the demonstrable signs that he had actually done so? It's become so common to hear the claim that maybe people never give pause to think about such questions. Maybe believers don't care because it sounds so magnanimous and any plot holes might bring their house of faith tumbling down.

It's not a new concept but I don't understand it either. A scapegoat was literally a bearer of sins. Jews would put their sins on a goat and chase it into the woods. Today they do it with chickens in a ritual called kaporos.

Westerners typically find it appalling... but... if it works the life of the chicken is being spent for something much greater than simply giving someone food for a day. The point of dispute must then be Westerners not thinking this is morally possible and Jews accepting that it is.

Westerners value individualism highly and are taught from an early age that you can't transfer guilt.

I have to question it. You actually could pronounce someone guilty and then punish someone else. If someone else speeds, I can pay the ticket. If I murder, someone else can go to jail. The only thing that makes it morally wrong is a value judgment that is ultimately baseless. There are real questions about what value it has for society to punish someone else for a misdeed, but these questions have nothing to do with the moral question of whether blame/sin/guilt can be transferred from one to another. The value of individualism to society is probably why the West flourishes but that doesn't mean individualism is the only moral option or that you can't transfer guilt.

[brunumb]

Sin is not like a suitcase, you have to carry around or send back; its more like a mortage, once you pay it off, its gone.
Jesus paid for our sins with his life.

In that case Jesus should have remained dead. It's like having someone pay off your mortgage with a cheque on Friday, only to find that it bounced when the bank opened on Monday.

[JehovahsWitness]

Sin is not like a suitcase, you have to carry around or send back; its more like a mortage, once you pay it off, its gone.
Jesus paid for our sins with his life.

In that case Jesus should have remained dead. It's like having someone pay off your mortgage with a cheque on Friday, only to find that it bounced when the bank opened on Monday.

When I said "life" meant HUMAN life.


Would Jesus need to "stay dead" for the Ransom to be valid?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 80#p875280

For more details please go to other posts related to...

ADAM &EVE, ORIGINAL SIN and ...RANSOM