What is sin to a believer?

[regibassman57]

@bibleguy,
The Church, the Jews and Gentiles will have nothing to do with any sacrifices and offerings for sin. Christ has finished the work for sins once for all time. When you say the Chruch of Christ will have part of Israel's sin sacrifices i do not agree and I'm positive sacrifices for sins will have nothing to do with the Chruch of Christ. I need one scripture to prove my point.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Any man that partakes in any sacrifices will be condemned.

Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

This may not be my strongest subject but i'm not a fool to think Christ would have His Church perform sacrifices for sins after He has said there is no more offerings for sin.

Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Christ has finished His work for sin.

 

[bibleguy]

@bibleguy,
The Church, the Jews and Gentiles will have nothing to do with any sacrifices and offerings for sin. Christ has finished the work for sins once for all time. When you say the Chruch of Christ will have part of Israel's sin sacrifices i do not agree and I'm positive sacrifices for sins will have nothing to do with the Chruch of Christ. I need one scripture to prove my point.

Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Any man that partakes in any sacrifices will be condemned.

Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

This may not be my strongest subject but i'm not a fool to think Christ would have His Church perform sacrifices for sins after He has said there is no more offerings for sin.

Gal 2:17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

Christ has finished His work for sin.

Hello!

You wrote: "Any man that partakes in any sacrifices will be condemned."

My response: Rubbish! Paul CONDONED an animal-sacrifice-laden vow to PROVE he walked "orderly according to the law" (Ac. 21:24-26).

You wrote: "This may not be my strongest subject but i'm not a fool to think Christ would have His Church perform sacrifices for sins after He has said there is no more offerings for sin."

My response: You're a fool if you ignore Scripture! For example:

Jesus earnestly DESIRES that people of all nations partake in sacrificial activity!

Remember? That's what Jesus DESIRES (Mk. 11:17, citing Is. 56:7, referring to the SACRIFICES for people of all nations), with violence against those who oppose Him (Mk. 11:15-16).

And you DARE to oppose Jesus on this issue?

Whooaaa! WHERE is the fear of God in you?

Mal. 3 affirms that Jesus will RESTORE the sacrifices "as in the days of old, as in former years" (Mal. 3:4).

Eze. 40-47 affirms that God will COMMAND animal sacrifices in a future rebuilt temple (a BIG problem for you!)

Jer. 33 affirms the RESTORATION of Levitical duties.

Is. 66 affirms the RESTORATION of Levitical duties.

Zec. 14 affirms the RESTORATION of the VERY animal-sacrifice-laden feast of Sukkot (with the requirement for GLOBAL national participation, and with punishment against nations who refuse).

Dt. 30:1-8 affirms the RESTORATION of 100% of all Torah (thus including sacrifices!) when we inherit the land (Gal. 3:29).

THOUSANDS of 1st-century believers were zealous for Torah (Ac. 21), thus zealous for animal sacrifices as well.

MANY 1st-century believers were even animal-sacrificing priests! (Ac. 6:7)

So OF COURSE there is no need for more offerings for sins which are already remitted (Heb. 10:18), but that's not proof that future sins will not be required to have future associated sacrificial activities.

Indeed, the prophets GUARANTEE future sacrificial activities in conjunction with FUTURE sin offerings (e.g., Eze. 42:13; 43:19,21,22,25; 44:27,29; 45:17,19,22,23,25; 46:20).

Why? Because God COMMANDS it! (Eze. 43:11). Or will you stand up in that day and oppose God because of your incorrect theology?

You wrote: "Christ has finished His work for sin."

My response: Of course. But that's not proof that there is not an ONGOING shadow-function exhibited in the sacrifices which the prophets GUARANTEE will (and should!) be restored (even restored by Jesus Himself! Mal. 3)

Please be corrected.

You have (presumably from ignorance) opposed the prophets.

Now it's time for you to stop.

thank you....
blessings...

 

[regibassman57]

@bibleguy,
Are you offering animal sacrifices seeing you know better? You said people are in disobedience by not offering sacrifices. You knowing better and not doing it causes your words to become very light. They have no weight.

Jesus has nothing to do with sacrifices for sin; He was "ONCE" offered for sin once far "ALL" time.

Hebrews 10:12
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Hebrews 9:28
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time "without sin" unto salvation.

 

[regibassman57]

@bibleguy,
I would like you expert opinion on these verses if you don't mind.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

 

[bibleguy]

@bibleguy,
Are you offering animal sacrifices seeing you know better? You said people are in disobedience by not offering sacrifices. You knowing better and not doing it causes your words to become very light. They have no weight.

Jesus has nothing to do with sacrifices for sin; He was "ONCE" offered for sin once far "ALL" time.

Hebrews 10:12
But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Hebrews 9:28
So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time "without sin" unto salvation.

Hello,

You wrote: "Are you offering animal sacrifices seeing you know better?"

My response: Of course not. I'm not a Levite or priest of the order of Aaron. And, the temple (or tabernacle) is not presently available for sacrifices.

So OF COURSE some elements of Torah (e.g., animal sacrifices) are not presently observable in this present diaspora.

Nevertheless, JESUS will personally restore the sacrifices (Mal. 3) in fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (Jer. 33) in the rebuilt temple (Zec. 6; Eze. 40-47) and they will continue (Is. 66) even with the GLOBAL requirement for worldwide participation (Zec. 14), when we Israelites return to the land to again obey 100% of ALL Torah (Dt. 30:1-8).

You wrote: "You said people are in disobedience by not offering sacrifices."

My response: No! People who refuse to partake in the sacrifice-laden feast of Sukkot WILL BE (in the future) in disobedience when the global requirement goes into effect (Zec. 14), with punishment against nations who refuse to participate (Zec. 14:17-19).

Israelites who refuse to partake in Torah-required animal sacrificial activity WILL BE (in the future) in disobedience, when 100% of all Torah is observable again.

People who (presently) do not participate in animal sacrifices are not in disobedience. Why? Because you can't disobey what's not even presently observable!

You wrote: "You knowing better and not doing it causes your words to become very light. They have no weight."

My response: Huh?

You wrote: "Jesus has nothing to do with sacrifices for sin; He was "ONCE" offered for sin once far "ALL" time."

My response: Silly billy! Of COURSE Jesus was offered for sin once for all time! But that doesn't prove that Jesus will not RESTORE animal sacrifices in accordance with the still yet-unfulfilled prophecies which guarantee that He will do so!

Remember?

Mal. 3 GUARANTEES Jesus will restore sacrifices "as in the days of old, as in former years".
Is. 66 GUARANTEES restoration of animal sacrifices.
Dt. 30:1-8 GUARANTEES restoration of animal sacrifices.
Jer. 33 GUARANTEES restoration of animal sacrifices as INTEGRAL to the future fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant.
Zec. 14 GUARANTEES restoration of animal sacrifices.
Eze. 40-47 GUARANTEES restoration of animal sacrifices, and LOTS of sin offerings (Eze. 42:13; 43:19,21,22,25; 44:27,29; 45:17,19,22,23,25; 46:20).
Mk. 11:17 PROVES Jesus is passionate about allowing people of ALL NATIONS to partake in animal sacrificial activity (citing Is. 56:7).
Paul CONDONED an animal-sacrifice-laden vow (Ac. 21). We should imitate Paul (1 Cor. 11:1; Php. 4:9).
Thousands of 1st-century believers were zealous for ALL Torah (Ac. 21), thus zealous for animal sacrifices.
Many 1st-century believers were animal-sacrificing priests! (Ac. 6:7)

And you DARE to oppose all these facts for no good reason?

You wrote: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;"

My response: Sure, the sacrifice of Jesus' body is the once-for-all sacrifice that takes sins away (1 Jn. 3:5).

But that doesn't prove that animal sacrifices are bad!

And that doesn't prove that animal sacrifices will not be restored again in the future!

And that doesn't prove that animal sacrifices SHOULD not be restored again in the future!

And that doesn't prove that we can just IGNORE the many prophets who flatly contradict your naive opposition to animal sacrifices!

Let's get back to the Bible....

Please stop ignoring passages that you simply don't like or understand....

A genuine truth-seeker will seek to INTEGRATE all Scripture into their perspective.

You, however, routinely seek to IGNORE Scripture which you don't like (or don't understand).

Please be corrected by ALL Scripture (2 Ti. 3:16).

Thank you.

 

[bibleguy]

@bibleguy,
I would like you expert opinion on these verses if you don't mind.

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

Hi!

The Torah sacrifices are an ONGOING (not abolished!) shadow (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:17).

The Torah sacrifices ATONE (cover) for sin (Lev. 4:20,26,31, etc.), but do not fully take sins away (Heb. 10:4,11).

The Torah animal sacrifices are a VIVID and POIGNANT reminder of the severe consequences of sin.

God started the idea in Ge. 3:21.

The animal sacrifices (before Christ) were a shadow looking FORWARD to the greater substance in Christ.

The animal sacrifices (after Christ) are a shadow looking BACKWARD to the greater substance in Christ.

Jesus, Himself, will restore the sacrifices (Mal. 3).

Jesus is passionate about allowing people of all nations to partake in sacrificial offerings (citing Is. 56:7 in Mk. 11:17).

If it's important to Jesus, it's important to me.

SHOULD be important to you too! (assuming you allow the Bible to correct you!)

blessings...

 

[JesusIs4Me]

This is to all my "Brothers and Sister in Christ; I believe when we look at the term "sin" in scripture, we have to know if it's a "verb" or a "noun" in the context of the scripture we're reading.

Go to this thread and explain sin in those verses in the OP in regards to this topic at the link below:

what John means in 1John 5:16 about the "sin leading to death?"

BTW My reply to the OP at that link is in post # 3 of that thread.

 

[regibassman57]

@bibleguy,

You said: The Torah sacrifices are an ONGOING (not abolished!) shadow (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:17).

That’s not what Hebrews 10:1 says. It simply says those sacrifices could not make the people perfect from sins

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

You said: The Torah sacrifices ATONE (cover) for sin (Lev. 4:20,26,31, etc.), but do not fully take sins away (Heb. 10:4,11).

I agree with this partially. Those sacrifices could only cover the sins of the people. You also said: but do not “fully take away sins.” You’re saying the sins of the people “were taken away but not fully.” This means you agree with Hebrews 10:4.

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should “take away sins.”

G851 (take away)
aphaireō
From G575 and G138; to remove (literally or figuratively): - cut (smite) off, take away.
Because you agree with Hebrews 10:4 you would by default agree with 1John 3:4.

1Jo 3:5 And you know that Jesus was manifested to “take away our sins”; and in him is no sin.

Hebrews 10:2 doesn’t say what you said because you chose not to answer the question.

10:2 says, If the animal sacrifices could have purged their sins they would have ceased to be offered because the people would not have a “conscience of sins.”

Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the “worshippers once purged” should have had “no more conscience of sins.”


Believers should not have a conscience of sins because Jesus took their sins away.

Everything else you wrote I’ve already spoke on it…

There are certain ceremonial laws that you are required to do, according to some of your post and you said people are in disobedience for not doing them.

 

[regibassman57]

@JesusIs4Me,
The point that I was making, these two verses are relating to the action of sin.

Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

These verses below are talking about being servants or slaves to Satan, as a noun.

Rom 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rom 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Rom 6:20 For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.

Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

 

[bibleguy]

@bibleguy,

You said: The Torah sacrifices are an ONGOING (not abolished!) shadow (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:17).

That’s not what Hebrews 10:1 says. It simply says those sacrifices could not make the people perfect from sins

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

You said: The Torah sacrifices ATONE (cover) for sin (Lev. 4:20,26,31, etc.), but do not fully take sins away (Heb. 10:4,11).

I agree with this partially. Those sacrifices could only cover the sins of the people. You also said: but do not “fully take away sins.” You’re saying the sins of the people “were taken away but not fully.” This means you agree with Hebrews 10:4.

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should “take away sins.”

G851 (take away)
aphaireō
From G575 and G138; to remove (literally or figuratively): - cut (smite) off, take away.
Because you agree with Hebrews 10:4 you would by default agree with 1John 3:4.

1Jo 3:5 And you know that Jesus was manifested to “take away our sins”; and in him is no sin.

Hebrews 10:2 doesn’t say what you said because you chose not to answer the question.

10:2 says, If the animal sacrifices could have purged their sins they would have ceased to be offered because the people would not have a “conscience of sins.”

Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the “worshippers once purged” should have had “no more conscience of sins.”


Believers should not have a conscience of sins because Jesus took their sins away.

Everything else you wrote I’ve already spoke on it…

There are certain ceremonial laws that you are required to do, according to some of your post and you said people are in disobedience for not doing them.

You wrote: "That’s not what Hebrews 10:1 says. It simply says those sacrifices could not make the people perfect from sins."

My response: Wrong. Heb. 10:1 refers to the shadows in the PRESENT TENSE! (not past tense).

Plus, you quoted Heb. 10:1 incorrectly. It should read "...which they OFFER...", not "...which they OFFERED". It's PRESENT TENSE there too, in Greek. KJV has it wrong.

Thus, we have reason to infer that the shadow-function of the sacrifices is ONGOING (present tense).

You wrote: "You’re saying the sins of the people “were taken away but not fully.” "

My response: No. I don't think they were taken away at all in Moses' day....they were merely "atoned" (covered), not taken away.

So of course I agree with Heb. 10:4 and Heb. 10:11.

You wrote: "And you know that Jesus was manifested to “take away our sins”; and in him is no sin."

My response: Sure...but you can't take away a future event that doesn't exist yet! Thus, Jesus takes away our sins if we are walking in faith in Him, such that whenever we sin, He takes it away (by virtue of the permanent and everlasting effect of His shed blood).

That's why Jesus COMMANDS us to CONTINUE to pray "forgive us our sins" (Lk. 11:4) as an ONGOING (Mt. 28:19-20) commandment which you evidently oppose!

Please stop opposing what Jesus COMMANDS!

You wrote: "Hebrews 10:2 doesn’t say what you said because you chose not to answer the question. "

My response: Huh? No idea what you're talking about...

You wrote: "There are certain ceremonial laws that you are required to do, according to some of your post and you said people are in disobedience for not doing them."

My response: What "ceremonial laws" are you referencing?

You wrote: "If the animal sacrifices could have purged their sins they would have ceased to be offered because the people would not have a “conscience of sins.” "

My response: Sure, until Jesus came, we were continually aware of the fact that the animal sacrifices ATONED for (but did not take away) our sins.

And, after Jesus came, we are no longer continually aware of any sins that are not completely taken away (if we remain in faith in Him).

But that's no excuse to ignore the ONGOING commandment to perform animal sacrifices!

That's WHY Paul CONDONED animal sacrifices (Ac. 21) along with THOUSANDS of 1st-century believers (Ac. 21). We should imitate Paul (1 Cor. 11:1; Php. 4:9), and likewise condone properly performed animal sacrifices.

That's WHY animal-sacrificing priests had no problem also being BELIEVERS (Ac. 6:7).

That's WHY it's ok for Jesus to RESTORE the sacrifices in the future (Mal. 3) rebuilt temple (Eze. 40-47) which He will rebuild (Zec. 6) in an ongoing (Is. 66) fulfillment of the Davidic Covenant (Jer. 33), when we return to the land to again obey 100% of ALL Torah (Dt. 30:1-8) with punishment against any country throughout the planet who refuses to participate (Zec. 14).

If you oppose Torah-sanctioned animal sacrifices, then you've opposed the NEW COVENANT itself. Why? Because TORAH passes directly INTO the New Covenant (Jer. 31:33).

Again, you have given us NO GOOD REASON to oppose all these prophecies.

Please stop ignoring prophecies you don't like.

Thanks!

 

[bibleguy]

deleted by myself.....accidentally duplicated it. sorry!

 

[regibassman57]

@bibleguy,

Below are different commentaries view on Hebrews 10:1, 2: When reading their versions they disagree with your assessment and interpretation. Only the Mosaic Law was offered yearly to cover the sins of the people because they could not take them away. Jesus Christ is the very image scripture speak of in Heb. 10:1 that came and did what the blood of bulls and goat could not do.

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away (remove) sins.

None of this having to do with the Mosaic Law is present tense.

Heb 10:11 And every priest stands (speaking under the Law of Moses) daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But Jesus, "after" he had (past tense not present) offered one sacrifice for sins "forever," sat down on the right hand of God;

Heb 10:14 For by one offering Jesus "has" (past present tense) "perfected forever" (from sin) them that are sanctified.

Heb 10:10 By the which will we (believers) "are" (present tenst) sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ "once for all."

You said of the scriptures I presented to you: My response: Wrong. Heb. 10:1 refers to the shadows in the PRESENT TENSE! (not past tense).

Plus, you quoted Heb. 10:1 incorrectly. It should read "...which they OFFER...", not "...which they OFFERED". It's PRESENT TENSE there too, in Greek. KJV has it wrong.

Thus, we have reason to infer that the shadow-function of the sacrifices is ONGOING (present tense).

You said king James was wrong:
Heb 10:1 (CEV) The Law of Moses is like a shadow of the good things to come. This shadow isn't the good things themselves, because it cannot free people from sin by the sacrifices that are offered year after year.

Heb 10:1 (GW) Moses' Teachings with their yearly cycle of sacrifices are only a shadow of the good things in the future. They aren't an exact likeness of those things. They can never make those who worship perfect.

Heb 10:1 (ISV) For the law, being only a reflection of the blessings to come and not their substance, can never, by the same sacrifices repeatedly offered year after year, make those who come near perfect.

Heb 10:1 (KJV) For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

Heb 10:2 (CEV) If there were worshipers who already have their sins washed away and their consciences made clear, there would not be any need to go on offering sacrifices.

Heb 10:2 (GW) If these sacrifices could have made the worshipers perfect, the sacrifices would have stopped long ago. Those who worship would have been cleansed once and for all. Their consciences would have been free from sin.

Heb 10:2 (ISV) Otherwise, would they not have stopped offering them, because the worshipers, cleansed once for all, would no longer be aware of any sins?

Heb 10:2 (KJV) For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

 

[regibassman57]

@bibleguy,
I would like to clarify some things…
You said: The Torah sacrifices are an ONGOING (not abolished!) shadow (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:17).

The Torah sacrifices ATONE (cover) for sin (Lev. 4:20,26,31, etc.), but do not fully take sins away (Heb. 10:4,11).

You said I wrote: "You’re saying the sins of the people “were taken away but not fully.” I asked you a question?

Then you wrote: You said: My response: No. I don't think they were “taken away at all” in Moses' day....they were merely "atoned" (covered), not taken away.

So, you’re saying they’ve been “taken away but not fully” on the one hand, and then you’re saying; “you don’t think they were taken away at all.”

 

[bibleguy]

@bibleguy,

Below are different commentaries view on Hebrews 10:1, 2: When reading their versions they disagree with your assessment and interpretation. Only the Mosaic Law was offered yearly to cover the sins of the people because they could not take them away. Jesus Christ is the very image scripture speak of in Heb. 10:1 that came and did what the blood of bulls and goat could not do.

Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away (remove) sins.

None of this having to do with the Mosaic Law is present tense.

Heb 10:11 And every priest stands (speaking under the Law of Moses) daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
Heb 10:12 But Jesus, "after" he had (past tense not present) offered one sacrifice for sins "forever," sat down on the right hand of God;

Heb 10:14 For by one offering Jesus "has" (past present tense) "perfected forever" (from sin) them that are sanctified.

Heb 10:10 By the which will we (believers) "are" (present tenst) sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ "once for all."

You said of the scriptures I presented to you: My response: Wrong. Heb. 10:1 refers to the shadows in the PRESENT TENSE! (not past tense).

Plus, you quoted Heb. 10:1 incorrectly. It should read "...which they OFFER...", not "...which they OFFERED". It's PRESENT TENSE there too, in Greek. KJV has it wrong.

Thus, we have reason to infer that the shadow-function of the sacrifices is ONGOING (present tense).

You said king James was wrong:
Heb 10:1 (CEV) The Law of Moses is like a shadow of the good things to come. This shadow isn't the good things themselves, because it cannot free people from sin by the sacrifices that are offered year after year.

Heb 10:1 (GW) Moses' Teachings with their yearly cycle of sacrifices are only a shadow of the good things in the future. They aren't an exact likeness of those things. They can never make those who worship perfect.

Heb 10:1 (ISV) For the law, being only a reflection of the blessings to come and not their substance, can never, by the same sacrifices repeatedly offered year after year, make those who come near perfect.

Heb 10:1 (KJV) For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

Heb 10:2 (CEV) If there were worshipers who already have their sins washed away and their consciences made clear, there would not be any need to go on offering sacrifices.

Heb 10:2 (GW) If these sacrifices could have made the worshipers perfect, the sacrifices would have stopped long ago. Those who worship would have been cleansed once and for all. Their consciences would have been free from sin.

Heb 10:2 (ISV) Otherwise, would they not have stopped offering them, because the worshipers, cleansed once for all, would no longer be aware of any sins?

Heb 10:2 (KJV) For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

Hello,

You wrote: "Below are different commentaries view on Hebrews 10:1, 2: When reading their versions they disagree with your assessment and interpretation."

My response: Do "different commentaries" take precedence over Scripture? Of course not!

Get back to the BIBLE please!

And, it appears you don't know how to determine the tense of a Greek verb.

PRESENT TENSE is used (in GREEK) in Hebrews 10:1 (ἔχων and προσφέρουσιν) and present tense again in Hebrews 10:11 (λειτουργων and προσφερων).

PRESENT TENSE also in Col. 2:17, regarding the ONGOING shadow (ἐστιν).

KJV got the tense wrong in Heb. 10:1, but right in Col. 2:17. It's PRESENT tense in both! The shadow-function is ONGOING! A PRESENT REALITY (as of the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews).

You wrote: "Only the Mosaic Law was offered yearly to cover the sins of the people because they could not take them away."

My response: This was an ONGOING shadow-function of sacrificial Torah, even at the POST-RESURRECTION time of the writing of the book of Hebrews!

It was not abolished or terminated or canceled in any way by the work of Jesus.

Paul condoned sacrifices (Ac. 21).
Thousands of 1st-century believers condoned sacrifices (Ac. 21).
Animal-sacrificing priests had no problem also being believers (Ac. 6:7).

The Prophets guarantee RESTORATION of animal sacrifices (Mal. 3; Dt. 30:1-8; Zec. 14; Is. 66; Eze. 40-47; Jer. 33).

You wrote: "Jesus Christ is the very image scripture speak of in Heb. 10:1 that came and did what the blood of bulls and goat could not do."

My response: Of course. But that's no excuse to IGNORE 1st-century church practice.

That's no excuse to OPPOSE Pauline approval of animal sacrifices.

That's no excuse to CONTRADICT the prophets which guarantee restoration of animal sacrifices in the future.

Please stop opposing what Jesus comes to restore.

Thanks.

 

[bibleguy]

@bibleguy,
I would like to clarify some things…
You said: The Torah sacrifices are an ONGOING (not abolished!) shadow (Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:17).

The Torah sacrifices ATONE (cover) for sin (Lev. 4:20,26,31, etc.), but do not fully take sins away (Heb. 10:4,11).

You said I wrote: "You’re saying the sins of the people “were taken away but not fully.” I asked you a question?

Then you wrote: You said: My response: No. I don't think they were “taken away at all” in Moses' day....they were merely "atoned" (covered), not taken away.

So, you’re saying they’ve been “taken away but not fully” on the one hand, and then you’re saying; “you don’t think they were taken away at all.”

Hi,

I see your confusion...but it's because my choice of language was ambiguous, and you (unintentionally and unknowingly) interpreted my language NOT in the way I intended it to be communicated.

That's why I clarified for you: I don't think they were "taken away at all" in Moses' day...they were merely "atoned" (covered), not taken away.

I never intended to communicate that I thought that they were "taken away but not fully".

Rather, if I recall correctly, I think I stated they were "not fully taken away".

And, "not fully taken away" does not necessarily entail "taken away but not fully".

After all, "not fully taken away" is logically consistent with "not taken away at all".

So, when I saw your mistaken assumption regarding my statement, I clarified, by stating explicitly: I don't think they were "taken away at all" in Moses' day...they were merely "atoned" (covered), not taken away.

Hope that clarifies this point for you.

blessings...

 

[regibassman57]

@bibleguy,
Your contradiction.
You said the King James version was wrong
Your belief is not according to scripture. Believe what you will in this, but you're not believing scripture.

 

[bibleguy]

@bibleguy,
Your contradiction.
You said the King James version was wrong
Your belief is not according to scripture. Believe what you will in this, but you're not believing scripture.

Hey there buddy!

What on earth are you talking about?

I just SHOWED you the PRESENT TENSE Greek verbs (Heb. 10:1,11; Col. 2:17) straight out of the Greek Biblical Text!

Why would you falsely accuse me of a "contradiction" that is "not according to scripture." ??????

I'll try it again:

Is the PRESENT TENSE USED IN HEBREWS 10:1,11 and COLOSSIANS 2:17?

(Hint: here are the Greek verbs, in PRESENT TENSE, for your proof!):

Ready?

Here it is (again):

PRESENT TENSE is used (in GREEK) in Hebrews 10:1 (ἔχων and προσφέρουσιν) and present tense again in Hebrews 10:11 (λειτουργων and προσφερων).

PRESENT TENSE also in Col. 2:17, regarding the ONGOING shadow (ἐστιν).

KJV got the tense wrong (wrongly using past tense, "offered") in Heb. 10:1, but right (using present tense) in Col. 2:17. It's PRESENT tense in both! The shadow-function is ONGOING! A PRESENT REALITY (as of the time of the writing of the book of Hebrews and Colossians).

Now, I won't let you get away with this!

WHERE is my "contradiction"?

All I did is show you the Greek verbs in present tense, STRAIGHT FROM THE GREEK TEXT!

What's wrong with that?

Wow.....

You're starting to show serious indications of truth-resistance.....

Please stop.

blessings...

 

[regibassman57]

@bibleguy,
You are wrong, no! you are wrong. You contradict scripture, no, you contradict scritpure. I'm not wrong, you are wrong, etc. Enough is enough on this. What you believe I do not. Continue to believe what you do.

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive;

I realize it says more than this, but I think we've been striving enough over God's word and saying nothing the other one is hearing. This is way past the first and second admonition. If we wish to go back and read the information that has been presented we can. It's now in God's hands to deal with our hearts if we desire truth. So, Peace and Love to you in Jesus Christ name.

 

[bibleguy]

@bibleguy,
You are wrong, no! you are wrong. You contradict scripture, no, you contradict scritpure. I'm not wrong, you are wrong, etc. Enough is enough on this. What you believe I do not. Continue to believe what you do.

2Ti 2:24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive;

I realize it says more than this, but I think we've been striving enough over God's word and saying nothing the other one is hearing. This is way past the first and second admonition. If we wish to go back and read the information that has been presented we can. It's now in God's hands to deal with our hearts if we desire truth. So, Peace and Love to you in Jesus Christ name.

Very well then...

I gave you the present-tense verbs STRAIGHT from the Biblical Greek Text.

You oppose that present tense....and you gave no good reason for doing so.

Don't say I didn't warn you!

best....

 

[regibassman57]

@Life,
2Co 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, “not imputing their trespasses unto them;” and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord “will not” “impute sin.”

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
Strong's Number: 3049
Browse Lexicon
Original Word
Word Origin
logizomai
middle voice from (3056)
Transliterated Word
TDNT Entry
Logizomai
4:284,536
Phonetic Spelling
Parts of Speech
log-id'-zom-ahee
Verb
Definition

1. to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over
2. 1. to take into account, to make an account of
   2. 1. metaph. to pass to one's account, to impute
      2. a thing is reckoned as or to be something, i.e. as availing for or equivalent to something, as having the like force and weight
   3. to number among, reckon with
   4. to reckon or account
3. to reckon inward, count up or weigh the reasons, to deliberate
4. by reckoning up all the reasons, to gather or infer
5. 1. to consider, take into account, weigh, meditate on
   2. to suppose, deem, judge
   3. to determine, purpose, decide

This word deals with reality. If I "logizomai" or reckon that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers to facts not suppositions.