Featured The Philosophy of Calvinism

Checking majority of the Systematic Theologies , Their theology proper started with Person and nature of God, mess that up, and all theology is messed up!

 

Was Jesus really a man and was He really tempted?
If not, then to say that He was tempted as we are is a farce. If He was, then God really becoming a man and being tempted IS BREAKING THE RULES. In this case that does not mean that temptation won, but rather that God defeated the curse of being a flesh and blood man ... the temptation that Adam fell to, Christ shattered.

In exactly the same way ... what does it mean for Christ to be a "sin offering"? If it means that Jesus was an empty symbolic symbolic gesture thinly painted to resemble sin, then it was as big a NOTHING-BURGER as a dead lamb or two dead doves and a fist full of grain. But what if Christ became sin (as he became "man") only God, being God became "Sin" without the "evil" even as Christ became a tempted man without original sin. Then the "sin offering" is more than a symbolic NOTHING-BURGER, rather the GOD-MAN-SIN OFFERING was actually able to take, absorb, become OUR sins and make the REAL (not symbolic) sacrifice of actually being "forsaken".

God does not LIE, rather God is the exception that proves the rule.

 

What is the OT sin offering ... something or nothing?
(Does the death of a lamb cover sin?)

 

To me, that gets done quite a bit on this forum;
Explaining how one gets from A to B.
With respect to several subjects, some people still dig their heels in and disagree with one another...
Even though the words are right in front of them.

So...
Explaining how one gets from Point A to Point B would be easy if we were talking about a newspaper article written by men, Jon.
But when it comes to the Bible, that book defies ( what is to us as men ) the "normal" way of understanding written texts.

Please see Matthew 13:10-11, 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, 2 Timothy 2:15, 1 Peter 2:2 and 1 John 2:20-27 as examples of what I see being needed in order to completely understand His words and in their proper contexts.

From my perspective, "systematic theologies" simply won't get anyone all the way there in their understanding...
There's an element that is present in some, but not all who profess Christ.

 

Show me one Systematic Theology which teaches first thing how to know God Himself. The first step is salvation, believing that God sent His Son to pay for one's sins. And the claim that was actually done, is His Son is risen from the dead. And by trusting in God, by way of His Son, one has eternal life, 1 John 5:9-13, John 17:3. This begins with the presupposition the New Testament document being used is God's word and God cannot lie.

 

I agree.
But not everyone who professes Christ has the ability to "connect the dots" the same way.

There are "wheat" and there are "tares".

I agree, but to me there's Something missing...

We can talk about "interpretation" all day long,
but if someone doesn't have the Holy Spirit as Teacher, then there's your disconnect, IMO.

Then the question becomes, "who has the Spirit, and who does not?".

 

He was tempted in the three areas, the flesh the world and Satan. However he wasn’t tempted to post on forums all day.


Joy unspeakable full of glory

 

Sin offering means to propitiate the wrath of God in the judgement of sin, so that would mean to have experiencing what lost will in final Judgement!

 

Theology proper starts with God Himself!

 

I am saying that the death of lambs and bulls removed no sins, or Jesus would not have needed to die. Therefore the OT sin offering was a symbolic placeholder ... a nothing-burger ... that actually removed no sin. The sin was not actually or literally imputed to the animal; the animal did NOT become the sin of the people. It was a "sin offering" that innately contained no sin within it.

IF (A GIANT, HUGE, and NOT GIVEN, IF) Jesus is a "sin offering" identical to the OT sin offering (one which contains no actual sin), then why is His offering not just as symbolic as the animal He replaced. Jesus is still "sinless" and we are still owners of our sin.

In contrast, one verse has Jesus crying out that he is FORSAKEN by God, and another verse claims that Jesus "became sin for us". So what does it mean for a sin offering to become an EFFECTIVE sin offering that actually does REMOVE the sins from US and place those sins IN/ON the OFFERING (Jesus Christ).

The "nothing-burger" is a symbolic sin offering. I DO NOT BELIEVE that Jesus was a nothing-burger and I do not believe that his offer to take away our sin was merely symbolic like the lamb in the OT. That is why I bristle with confusion when you confidently state that Jesus did not become sin but was a "sin offering" with no attempt to explain any further. Two doves and a fist full of grain is also a "sin offering" ... Jesus was more than that.

 

Jesus came as Adam was when first created, as he was not touched by the Fall, as was sinless in nature and in form!

 

To have Him perish as the sin bearer for His own!