Disputed Passages

[oldethennew]

after receiving The Holy Spirit,
our 'personal', and this can be life-time, ingrained, implanted, etc., 'personal-convictions',
well,
The Holy Spirit has a way of separating the 'wheat from the chaff IN our minds, =
'a life-long-process' of over-coming the 'old-man'...

 

[Nehemiah6]

The long ending of Mark.

That fact that it is in the bible is significant yet it lacks early manuscript authority. Has it been added? How do we incorporate it into the canon of scripture?

"Early manuscript authority" would be valid only if the earliest manuscripts had not been corrupted. Since they have been corrupted, later manuscripts represent the original texts much better.

As a matter of fact Codex Vaticanus (supposedly one the the earliest) actually has a blank space which corresponds to the Last Twelve Verses of Mark, and which was deliberately left open indicating that text should have been entered in that space.

In any event if you wish to understand why this is genuine Scripture, read and study the The Last Twelve Verses of Mark by Dean John William Burgon. He had provided all the supporting evidence since he personally examined and collated manuscripts as one of the leading textual scholars of the 19th century.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Heb 10 begins with ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ περὶ ἁμαρτίας... There is no need for θυσίας to be included before ἁμαρτίας because that idea is already supplied by ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ.

Well I disagree with that reasoning because it's the same wording found in the OT. Here are two examples:

και πάντα τα περί της αμαρτίας ων αν εισενεχθή από του αίματος αυτών εις την σκηνήν του μαρτυρίου εξιλάσασθαι εν τω αγίω ου βρωθήσεται εν πυρί κατακαυθήσεται Leviticus 6:30

και τη ημέρα τη δευτέρα λήψη έριφον εξ αιγών αμώμους υπέρ αμαρτίας και εξιλάσονται το θυσιαστήριον καθότι εξιλάσαντο εν τω μόσχω Ezekiel 43:22

 

[oldhermit]

Well I disagree with that reasoning because it's the same wording found in the OT. Here are two examples:

και πάντα τα περί της αμαρτίας ων αν εισενεχθή από του αίματος αυτών εις την σκηνήν του μαρτυρίου εξιλάσασθαι εν τω αγίω ου βρωθήσεται εν πυρί κατακαυθήσεται Leviticus 6:30

και τη ημέρα τη δευτέρα λήψη έριφον εξ αιγών αμώμους υπέρ αμαρτίας και εξιλάσονται το θυσιαστήριον καθότι εξιλάσαντο εν τω μόσχω Ezekiel 43:22

I know this is how it is translated throughout Lev, Num, and Deut. but, to me this seems more interpretative that translational.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I know this is how it is translated throughout Lev, Num, and Deut. but, to me this seems more interpretative that translational.

They're kind of inextricably intertwined at times, don't you think? In this particular case the ramifications are huge, IMO. I think the difference between Christ becoming sin and Christ becoming a sin offering is a foundational difference between doctrines with gnostic characteristics and the faith.

 

[oldhermit]

They're kind of inextricably intertwined at times, don't you think? In this particular case the ramifications are huge, IMO. I think the difference between Christ becoming sin and Christ becoming a sin offering is a foundational difference between doctrines with gnostic characteristics and the faith.

I do not see a problem with Christ becoming sin for us. This idea is certainly reflected in the Azazel.

 

[Alertandawake]

In addition to the last passages in Mark 16:9-20, don't forget the disputed passage in 1 John 5:7;

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I have research about this passage. 1 John 5.7. Have a read on Comma Johanneum.

If older manuscripts do not contain writings compared to newer manuscripts, then the writings concerned had to come from somewhere?

Now have a look at the style of writing when reading 1 John 5.6-8, and compare the readings to those with and without the Comma Johanneum. You see in 1 John 5.6, there is a reference to the following - water, blood and Spirit, and once again in 1 John 5.8, that same reference.

So the question remains where did the "Comma Johanneum" come from?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I do not see a problem with Christ becoming sin for us. This idea is certainly reflected in the Azazel.

IMO the goat of banishing (azazel) is not Christ. When the high priest comes out of the holy place he will banish sin alive into the lake of fire, as the goat was banished alive into the wilderness (which symbolized destruction to Israel).

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I do not see a problem with Christ becoming sin for us. This idea is certainly reflected in the Azazel.

The problem I see with Christ becoming sin (which is just a horrid, unworkable idea IMO), is that doctrines with gnostic tendencies leverage that to teach that since he became sin, we have become the righteousness of GOD. That's simply not true. We are becoming the righteousness of GOD.

But if we look at Christ having become a sin offering in which our disobedience was imputed to him, then it follows more consistently that his righteousness was imputed to us. Not an actual exchange of substance so to speak, but an exchange of imputations.

 

[shrume]

They're kind of inextricably intertwined at times, don't you think? In this particular case the ramifications are huge, IMO. I think the difference between Christ becoming sin and Christ becoming a sin offering is a foundational difference between doctrines with gnostic characteristics and the faith.

How could Christ -become- sin? Sin is disobedience, or "missing the mark". Someone could become disobedient, but they cannot become disobedience. I believe the correct understanding of 2 Cor 5:21 is "sin offering", and not "sin".

 

[oldhermit]

IMO the goat of banishing (azazel) is not Christ. When the high priest comes out of the holy place he will banish sin alive into the lake of fire, as the goat was banished alive into the wilderness (which symbolized destruction to Israel).

Every sacrifice of the sacrificial system represented Christ in some fashion. The offering of the two goats was one sacrifice. One was slain having the sins of the nation confessed over it by the laying on of the hands of the high priest and the other as the sin bearer who bore the sins of the nation out of the camp. Of course this is a representation of Christ. "And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." 2Peter 2:24.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Shrume, you have convinced me. I was trying to grasp the debate and you have made me see it. I agree with you and HRFTD on it. It's nonsensical to me.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Every sacrifice of the sacrificial system represented Christ in some fashion. The offering of the two goats was one sacrifice. One was slain having the sins of the nation confessed over it by the laying on of the hands of the high priest and the other as the sin bearer who bore the sins of the nation out of the camp. Of course this is a representation of Christ. "And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." 2Peter 2:24.

How will Christ be banished alive into the lake of fire, which is the anti-type of azazel being banished alive into the wilderness?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

How could Christ -become- sin? Sin is disobedience, or "missing the mark". Someone could become disobedient, but they cannot become disobedience. I believe the correct understanding of 2 Cor 5:21 is "sin offering", and not "sin".

I agree. Sin is not a substance. It is either an act of disobedience or a spirit. IMO the idea that sin is a substance is gnostic in nature because they believed that grace was a substance.

 

[dcontroversal]

I do not see a problem with Christ becoming sin for us. This idea is certainly reflected in the Azazel.

I agree with this...........there is a reason he became a curse for us...(Galatians)

 

[oldhermit]

How will Christ be banished alive into the lake of fire, which is the anti-type of azazel being banished alive into the wilderness?

I cannot imagine why you think the wilderness is a representation of the lake of fire. Like Peter says, Christ bore our sins in his flesh. The Azazel symbolically did the same for Israel.

 

[dcontroversal]

The simple concept is found in the two Adams....

Adam one walked with God, fell in sin

The second Adam was sinless....took the 1st Adam's sin and imparted the 2nd Adam's righteousness through faith

The above restored the position of the 1st Adam to all found in the imputed righteousness of the 2nd Adam..........

 

[dcontroversal]

I cannot imagine why you think the wilderness is a representation of the lake of fire. Like Peter says, Christ bore our sins in his flesh. The Azazel symbolically did the same for Israel.

Most religionists try to make the wilderness = loss of salvation....false...

God led them by day and night
God's presence was made known
God provided
God gave a system of worship and his law
God used the wilderness to punish (chastisement)

It does not equal the loss of salvation

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

I cannot imagine why you think the wilderness is a representation of the lake of fire. Like Peter says, Christ bore our sins in his flesh. The Azazel symbolically did the same for Israel.

He bore the curse of our sins in his flesh - "the handwriting of ordinances" that was nailed to the cross.

I think the wilderness is a representation of the lake of fire because the goat was banished alive, as will all who practice evil be banished alive from GOD's presence.

 

[oldhermit]

He bore the curse of our sins in his flesh - "the handwriting of ordinances" that was nailed to the cross.

I think the wilderness is a representation of the lake of fire because the goat was banished alive, as will all who practice evil be banished alive from GOD's presence.

Peter says he bore our sins in his flesh. Peter draws this idea from Isaiah 53:4 "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted."