Does Hebrews 10 say if we willfully sin after being saved there is no more forgiveness?

[Inquisitor]

I prefer the Holy Spirit. Spiritual things are spiritualy discerned.

If you are led by the Holy Spirit then you accept the fruit, the gifts, and ministries of the Holy Spirit?

1 Corinthians 1
Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

If you are led by the Holy Spirit then you are obedient to the Lord's commandments.

1 Corinthians 14:37
If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command.

You are doing very well if you can tick the boxes above.

Though the letter to the Hebrews is a text document that has one correct reading.

To read Hebrews in context is not a spiritual exercise.

To believe what Hebrews is saying is spiritual.

 

[JohnDB]

If you are led by the Holy Spirit then you accept the fruit, the gifts, and ministries of the Holy Spirit?

1 Corinthians 1
Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

If you are led by the Holy Spirit then you are obedient to the Lord's commandments.

1 Corinthians 14:37
If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command.

You are doing very well if you can tick the boxes above.

Though the letter to the Hebrews is a text document that has one correct reading.

To read Hebrews in context is not a spiritual exercise.

To believe what Hebrews is saying is spiritual.

Nope.
Westcott was a translator of non-biblical Jewish literature....
As such he wrote a commentary on Hebrews used today to write all the other commentaries.
Because Hebrews constantly quotes non biblical Jewish literature....and if you know that literature then you can understand things like the three types of prayer and "rest" and all the other many things discussed or mentioned in Hebrews.

It's not mystical....its practical. Flat reading of Hebrews is the fastest way to misunderstand the things written in it.

 

[JohnDB]

Eadie and Lightfoot also wrote a supplement to Westcott and Hort's commentary....because Eadie was his student.
Hort and Lightfoot.....those were the financiers.....they supplied the money so the other men could explain what we really do know today.

 

[Qt]

If you are led by the Holy Spirit then you accept the fruit, the gifts, and ministries of the Holy Spirit?

1 Corinthians 1
Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy.

If you are led by the Holy Spirit then you are obedient to the Lord's commandments.

1 Corinthians 14:37
If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command.

You are doing very well if you can tick the boxes above.

Though the letter to the Hebrews is a text document that has one correct reading.

To read Hebrews in context is not a spiritual exercise.

To believe what Hebrews is saying is spiritual.

Your words do not address what God has said.

The Spirit saith, The knowledge of the truth is that Jesus blood cleanses our Conscience, who we are from dead works, sin. Acts that cause death, so we can serve the living God. (Heb 9:14) For the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. (Heb 10:4) But He in these last days by the sacrifice of Himself have put away sin once and for all. (Heb 10:26) For all that is for the ministry must be sanctified (set apart for holy use) by His Blood. (Heb 9:20:22) And we whom He has sanctified He also perfected. Whereof this perfectness the Holy Ghost speaks when He saith, God will put His law in our hearts and in our minds. (Heb 10:14-16)
Having our hearts sprinkled from that evil conscience and our bodies washed by the pure water let us hold fast this profession of Faith without wavering. For He is faithful that promised. Let us not forsake the assembling of ourselves as is the manner of some but exhort one another daily as we see the day approaching. For if we are in a state of continuing sinning willfully after we have received the knowledge of this truth there remains no more sacrifice for sin, Only judgment and the fiery indignation of our God. For they counted the blood of the covenant an unholy thing and have done despite unto the spirit of grace. It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of our mighty God. But we are not of those who draw back unto perdition (destruction) but are those who believe unto the saving of the soul. (Heb 10:19-28)

That is what the Spirit says in Hebrews. None of which your post addresses.

 

[Qt]

YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? HEB 10: 26 Seems to disagree with your statment.

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

How do you reconcile Heb 10:26 with your beliefs?

Heb 10:26 is being said in the present continual sense. A way of life not an occasional instance.

 

[Bible_Locket]

The more we discuss the Bible,the more we ourselves prove it's messages true.

 

[Drich]

The Gospel of Matthew is a different book written by a different Author....the audience was the same.
HOWEVER
We do not know the original title of Matthew's Gospel...there are many suggestions such as Good News (Latin for "Good News" is "Gospel")
As in the "Good News According to Matthew"

Irrelevant.

"Hebrews" has no such name associated with it. Only a letter to the Jews and a name referenced by only 2 manuscripts)

The book/letter could have been written as early as 40AD.

Great, citation please.

The late writing date you suggested is usually discredited...

Actually no. Mid first century is the main stream belief for the writing of the book of hebrews.

The book of Hebrews was likely written between AD 64 and 69, before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. [1]

Dating Clues

• • Before AD 70: The text does not mention the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70. It speaks of the Jewish temple system as still operating in the present tense (Hebrews 10:11), implying it was written before the temple fell. [1, 2, 3]
  • Mention of Timothy: Hebrews 13:23 mentions that Timothy had recently been released from prison, placing the letter during the apostolic era of the mid-first century. [1, 2]
  • Level of Persecution: The readers had faced insults and hardship, but the author notes they had not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood (Hebrews 12:4), fitting a time prior to extreme state-sponsored Roman persecutions under Nero that intensified around AD 64–65. [1]
  Google Search

Meaning that sacrifices offered in the Temple are sin.

They where for those who accepted Christ as their savior.

Which is where you are totally missing the function and purpose of the 4th commandment. It mentions a SINGLE day....the collective singular didn't exist in Hebrew language. Saturday worship is not the subject of the 4th commandment....that requirement is handled elsewhere in the Old Covenant.

No one has mentioned the fourth commandment in anything I have discussed before you just now.

So when Jesus fulfills the 4th Commandment it means the Old Covenant is fulfilled and with that same blood a New Covenant is instituted.
(Blood Path covenant with Abraham was also fulfilled/completed by Jesus and the New Covenant is the ONLY covenant fully in force)

You are going to need some scripture to go along with this, AFTER you explain what any of this has to do with what is actually being discussed.

The OLD COVENANTS all point to Jesus's sacrifice on the cross. You cannot have the New Covenant without the Old Covenants....because the Old Covenant adherents along with the New, TOGETHER are the righteousness of Christ. (Hummmm....more mystery scriptures I'm pointing/quoting/alluding to here)

No one has said anything to the contrary.

Afterlife debate?

There was no debate when the law was given. My statement: When the original covenant was established with Moses on Sinai eternal life was not apart of the original contract. As no one in the time of Moses knew anything of the afterlife. Deut 6 and 7 spell out what one was to receive for keeping the covenant with God. Which was God's protection, Good health, wealth, long life and a piece of the promise land.

I am not saying there was not eventually a belief and amendment to the law to make it include a trip to Heaven. What I have demonstrated is that in the original covenant, nothing said keeping the law was a path to the afterlife. I even go so far as to point out that there is a great debate over this in the time of Christ. However because the Sadducees did not believe in the after life and because they represented the temple leadership, the official position of the temple in the time of Christ was there was no afterlife.

Which meant that only those who followed the beliefs and teachings of the Pharisees would have thought/believed that keeping the law was the path to eternal life. The Pharisees in the first century (before the destruction of the temple) where a religious minority. Meaning it is likly that very few people sought eternal life through the law/OC. This is why Jesus in mat 5 says He did not come to abolish the OT laws. as the OT Law did not ORIGINALLY have anything to do with the Covenant of eternal life. Jesus was setting up a new covenant which meant New reward, and new rules which was based on the perfect completion of the OT. Which no one could obtain. Which is again why the OC remained completely intact.

It was mentioned by both Daniel and one other OT prophet.

Irrelevant as the point I am making is that the OC did not contain the promise of eternal life. Which spured the debate in Jesus' time. For the purpose of this argument, the fact that the OC did not contain the promise of eternal life means the promise of eternal life under the letter of the law was never promised by God anywhere in the torah. So to follow the OC as a means to eternal life is to do so with out Merritt or God's blessing.

Yes. The Saducees dismissed the Afterlife but 2 other groups accepted it. But Sadducees were in charge of the Temple.

The sadducees being incharge of the temple meant they represented the main stream beliefs in Judaism. Meaning the official position of the temple in the time of Jesus was that there was no after life.

 

[JohnDB]

Before AD 70: The text does not mention the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70. It speaks of the Jewish temple system as still operating in the present tense (Hebrews 10:11), implying it was written before the temple fell. [1, 2, 3]

The Temple went under siege in 66AD....and did not operate normally after that. The Temple was under siege for roughly 3 1/2 years.

sadducees being incharge of the temple meant they represented the main stream beliefs in Judaism. Meaning the official position of the temple in the time of Jesus was that there was no after life.

No....
They were the ones installed by Rome because they were the easiest for Rome to deal with....zero other reasons.

Where did you learn about the Roman Empure and Early Church? You definitely need a refund.

 

[Drich]

The Temple went under siege in 66AD....and did not operate normally after that. The Temple was under siege for roughly 3 1/2 years.

irrelevant.

No....

In fact yes...

They were the ones installed by Rome

Ah... No.

because they were the easiest for Rome to deal with....zero other reasons.

They remain in power because they went along with the occupation for the most part.

Where did you learn about the Roman Empure and Early Church? You definitely need a refund.

You get i have access to google right? Matter of fact you do too.. So why is it, if you going to put on a pompous display of arrogance that you would not check your facts first?? (Bet you puckered up a little bit, and youre now trying to reassure yourself that your uncheck facts are indeed correct.. They're not btw..

So with the mighty resources of google let's look at when the roman empire first occupied Jerusalem:

Rome first conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE, when the Roman general Pompey the Great captured the city during a regional conflict, making Judaea a client kingdom under Roman influence. [Encyclopedia Britannica]

So the next Question would be; "When did the Sadducees become the temple leadership?"

The Sadducees emerged and took control of the Jerusalem Temple leadership during the mid-second century BCE, rising to prominence under the Hasmonean kingdom around 150 to 135 BCE. [1, 2]

So the Sadducees where in power/The Temple Leadership for almost 100 years before Rome occupied Jerusalem. Meaning the romans had nothing to do with the Sadducees ascent into the temple leadership. They got there because they could trace their linage back to the priests that serve Solomon.

Rise to Power

• • Priestly Origins: The Sadducees grew out of elite, wealthy priestly families who claimed lineage back to Zadok, the chief priest of King Solomon’s ancient temple. [1, 2]
  • Hasmonean Era: They consolidated formal political and religious dominance of the temple cult during the reigns of early Hasmonean rulers, specifically starting around the rule of John Hyrcanus (135–105 BCE). [1, 2]

Control and Decline

• • The Roman Period: Their grip on the temple and the Sanhedrin (ruling council) continued uninterrupted through the Herodian and Roman periods, backed by their status as the aristocratic class. [1, 2, 3]
  • The End of Power: Their absolute control over the temple leadership ended permanently in 70 CE, when the Roman army destroyed the Second Temple, causing the Sadducees to vanish from history. [1]

 

[JohnDB]

irrelevant.

In fact yes...

Ah... No.


They remain in power because they went along with the occupation for the most part.

You get i have access to google right? Matter of fact you do too.. So why is it, if you going to put on a pompous display of arrogance that you would not check your facts first?? (Bet you puckered up a little bit, and youre now trying to reassure yourself that your uncheck facts are indeed correct.. They're not btw..

So with the mighty resources of google let's look at when the roman empire first occupied Jerusalem:



So the next Question would be; "When did the Sadducees become the temple leadership?"



So the Sadducees where in power/The Temple Leadership for almost 100 years before Rome occupied Jerusalem. Meaning the romans had nothing to do with the Sadducees ascent into the temple leadership. They got there because they could trace their linage back to the priests that serve Solomon.

Rise to Power

• • Priestly Origins: The Sadducees grew out of elite, wealthy priestly families who claimed lineage back to Zadok, the chief priest of King Solomon’s ancient temple. [1, 2]
  • Hasmonean Era: They consolidated formal political and religious dominance of the temple cult during the reigns of early Hasmonean rulers, specifically starting around the rule of John Hyrcanus (135–105 BCE). [1, 2]

Control and Decline

• • The Roman Period: Their grip on the temple and the Sanhedrin (ruling council) continued uninterrupted through the Herodian and Roman periods, backed by their status as the aristocratic class. [1, 2, 3]
  • The End of Power: Their absolute control over the temple leadership ended permanently in 70 CE, when the Roman army destroyed the Second Temple, causing the Sadducees to vanish from history. [1]

Yeah...

And you STILL dont know what any of that means....

There was this guy see
His name was Alex.
He came after Bocephus
And after Alex came a bunch of other dudes that knew the game in Israel. They were the ones that eventually metriculated into the Romans....but Roman Society was largely Greek to begin with. Players were mostly the same during the name change.

Now the Jews also had some whodoey going on as well with who was in charge of the Temple and was the High Priest.
This was the period (out of several) where that rope SECURELY tied to the leg of the High Priest mattered a LOT. Because they kept dying when they went into the HOH and were supposed to offer up a prayer for forgiveness on atonement day.

Maybe learn more than just what Google spits out there sonny....
It means you haven't learned anything.

Knowledge without wisdom is worthless.
And you all in the discount rack of knowledge.

 

[Delvianna]

If you are saved via grace and repentance, and then decide to turn back to a life of sin, which you should have left when you repented, you don't get a do-over due to essentially, you're crucifying Christ twice. That's what Hebrews 10 means.

So if you reject God via living in sin, that's it. This is why God destroyed temples and swallowed people via the ground, or they just dropped dead. Because judgement was, you rejected God after walking in the truth of His salvation. No 2nd chances.

You wither, you die, you get broken off as a branch from the vine and tossed into the fire.

 

[HeIsHere]

The Letter to the Hebrews affirms the security of salvation in Christ from start to finish.

For a Believer in Christ and Christ in them, to lose their salvation and be expelled from the kingdom…

1. God would have to forsake us, when he said He wouldn’t (Heb 13:5)
2. God would have to cast us out, when he said He wouldn’t (John 6:37)
3. God would have to condemn us, when he said He wouldn’t (Rom 8:1,34)
4. God would have to withdraw his Spirit, when he said He wouldn’t (John 14:16-17)
5. God would have to remember our sins, when he said He wouldn’t (Jer 31:34, Heb 10:17)
6. God would have to forget that we are his children, when he said He wouldn’t (Is 49:15)
7. God would have to blot our names out of the book of life, when he said He wouldn’t (Rev 3:5)

Anyone who teaches salvation is not secure in Christ, teaches the cross was necessary but not sufficient, thereby nullifying the work of Christ Jesus.

 

[dkontner]

Hebrews 12​

7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?

 

[JohnDB]

See,
When the date, time, purpose of writing, audience and theme is all warped and reduced to just extraneous facts....
The scriptures stop being a living conversation between two people....and one of those people a divine messenger of God's saying Holy Spirit directed things.
And thats how scriptures become misused for their intended purpose.

But that's how people miss out on "Today" and dont understand how today is still "Today" aka, THE Sabbath Day.

But.....
Carry on ignoring capitalized letters in the middle of sentences...that definitely means SOMETHING. Probably nothing that important...it's just your immortal soul at stake....hardly anything at all.

 

[Drich]

Yeah...

And you STILL dont know what any of that means....

IDK how you figure that Sport.. it seems to me your initial claim was that ROME Installed the Sadducees was well defeated by the fact that Rome did not have any influence or power over this region till some 100 years AFTER the Sadducees established themself in the position of temple leadership. So let me break that down for you.. Sadducees through their own devices establish themselves as the temple leadership. Then a complete century/100 years goes by before Rome took over the region and had the ability to install anyone in the temple. But, because the Sadducees where willing to concede to the Roman authority, Rome had no cause to unseat the current religious/Temple government.

There was this guy see
His name was Alex.
He came after Bocephus

Hmm, yeah, the problem with alex and bo.. They where Not ROMAN (One was not even Human.) May I remind you that You claim ROME installed the Sadducees, not the greeks. You see Alex-ander The Great was greek, not roman. Sooo, again, no.

here is a refresher of what you said:

sadducees being incharge of the temple meant they represented the main stream beliefs in Judaism. Meaning the official position of the temple in the time of Jesus was that there was no after life.

No....
They were the ones installed by Rome because they were the easiest for Rome to deal with....zero other reasons.

Where did you learn about the Roman Empure and Early Church? You definitely need a refund.

And after Alex came a bunch of other dudes that knew the game in Israel. They were the ones that eventually metriculated into the Romans....but Roman Society was largely Greek to begin with. Players were mostly the same during the name change.

I tell you what let's just ask The Google AI if Rome installed the Sadducees... Whoa.. That's a surprise.. Well, I'm a man who can admit when he is wrong...

No, Rome did not create or install the Sadducees as the Temple leadership; the Sadducees were already an established, wealthy Jewish aristocratic class that had controlled the Jerusalem Temple for generations before Rome took direct control of Judea. However, Rome and its client kings did heavily manipulate the leadership by choosing which specific Sadducean family members would serve as High Priest. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The complex dynamic between Rome, the Temple, and the Sadducees operated through specific historical mechanisms. [1]

1. Pre-Roman Origins of Power
The Sadducees emerged during the Hasmonean Period (2nd century BCE), long before Pompey the Great conquered Jerusalem for Rome in 63 BCE. Their power was rooted in bloodlines tracing back to King David's high priest, Zadok. They were traditionalists who dominated the Sanhedrin (the supreme Jewish council) and managed the massive economic and ritual operations of the Second Temple. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

The question is... Are you the same type of man? Because clearly I am not wrong here, you are. ROME DID NOT INSTALL THE SADDUCEES. So again can you admit when you are wrong? Or at the very minimum can you concede the subject by just walking away?

Now the Jews also had some whodoey going on as well with who was in charge of the Temple and was the High Priest.
This was the period (out of several) where that rope SECURELY tied to the leg of the High Priest mattered a LOT. Because they kept dying when they went into the HOH and were supposed to offer up a prayer for forgiveness on atonement day.

Irrelevant. The subject being discussed is: "Did Rome Install the Sadducees?" The answer Historically is no.

Maybe learn more than just what Google spits out there sonny....
It means you haven't learned anything.

How embarrassing for you... You still refuse to check recorded history with your version of it. You don't even seem to know that "Bocephus" is Bucephalus in the greek and the only mention of a "Bucephalus" in Grecian antiquity is the war Horse alexander the great rode into battle on.

Maybe don't preach on my understanding till you check your beliefs with history.

Knowledge without wisdom is worthless.
And you all in the discount rack of knowledge.

What is being discussed is not a matter of wisdom but verifiable/Recorded Historical fact.

Where wisdom comes in this discussion is in the citations given to support the historical facts being claimed. Have you noticed that I have citations and source material that supports what I have claimed?
Now have you noticed the absence of any sort of historical evidence that supports your claims? only your bulling posts that question my intelligence and ability to use a search engine. Where is the wisdom in defaulting to an Ad Hom/logical fallacy to try and save face?

Maybe you should take some time and look up how knowledge and wisdom in this situation is applied, before you charge someone with not having it... Otherwise it can bite you back when you display the very lack of wisdom, you have charged others with.

 

[JohnDB]

IDK how you figure that Sport.. it seems to me your initial claim was that ROME Installed the Sadducees was well defeated by the fact that Rome did not have any influence or power over this region till some 100 years AFTER the Sadducees established themself in the position of temple leadership. So let me break that down for you.. Sadducees through their own devices establish themselves as the temple leadership. Then a complete century/100 years goes by before Rome took over the region and had the ability to install anyone in the temple. But, because the Sadducees where willing to concede to the Roman authority, Rome had no cause to unseat the current religious/Temple government.

Hmm, yeah, the problem with alex and bo.. They where Not ROMAN (One was not even Human.) May I remind you that You claim ROME installed the Sadducees, not the greeks. You see Alex-ander The Great was greek, not roman. Sooo, again, no.

here is a refresher of what you said:







I tell you what let's just ask The Google AI if Rome installed the Sadducees... Whoa.. That's a surprise.. Well, I'm a man who can admit when he is wrong...



The question is... Are you the same type of man? Because clearly I am not wrong here, you are. ROME DID NOT INSTALL THE SADDUCEES. So again can you admit when you are wrong? Or at the very minimum can you concede the subject by just walking away?


Irrelevant. The subject being discussed is: "Did Rome Install the Sadducees?" The answer Historically is no.

How embarrassing for you... You still refuse to check recorded history with your version of it. You don't even seem to know that "Bocephus" is Bucephalus in the greek and the only mention of a "Bucephalus" in Grecian antiquity is the war Horse alexander the great rode into battle on.

Maybe don't preach on my understanding till you check your beliefs with history.

What is being discussed is not a matter of wisdom but verifiable/Recorded Historical fact.

Where wisdom comes in this discussion is in the citations given to support the historical facts being claimed. Have you noticed that I have citations and source material that supports what I have claimed?
Now have you noticed the absence of any sort of historical evidence that supports your claims? only your bulling posts that question my intelligence and ability to use a search engine. Where is the wisdom in defaulting to an Ad Hom/logical fallacy to try and save face?

Maybe you should take some time and look up how knowledge and wisdom in this situation is applied, before you charge someone with not having it... Otherwise it can bite you back when you display the very lack of wisdom, you have charged others with.

The whole thing is.....

ALL the things I mentioned about setting, audience, reason for writing, and all that is key crucial for understanding the books our bible contains.

And yet....


YOU CLAIM THEY MEAN NOTHING.

And I call BS on that notion.

And you have yet to prove one little thing, as you pick at me, that the book of Hebrews was not dependent upon "common knowledge " the intended audience at the time of writing used to understand what was being communicated in this letter.

The Author had a specific audience he wished to communucate with and get that audience to understand key principles and concepts using facts in their world to Express them.

And yet, you say that's hogwash....
And that is eisogesis....you putting YOUR ideas into scripture and forcing it to say what you desire instead of letting the writing tell you what it wants to convey using a mid first century setting.

Meaning....
Going to the Temple and participating in ritual sacrifice was sin....one that Jesus's blood was not going to cover.
Because it's a Declaration that Jesus's blood was insufficient.

And that's the heart of this discussion.
Game, set, MATCH

 

[Drich]

Your last post consists of two logical fallacies.

1.straw-man argument.

You have recreated my position in something you feel more comfortable arguing. Nothing you said here accuratly repersents my position of any thing you have brought up.

2.Red Herring:

A red Herring is when someone drops the subject being discussed (That subject being you claiming that the romans put the sadducees into power, and can not admit that you are wrong.) in favor of a new subject to distract from the one previously being discussed. Yeah, I'm not doing that.

The fact that you had to introduce logical fallacies into this discussion to 'win' your "Game set match." Says more about you than I ever could.

 

[JohnDB]

Lahoo
Zaherrrr

You never were able to win with Google as your assistant....