Oh my gosh, this is powerful about the two different words chosen in the two different Old Testament translations, one from the days of the Apostles and the other from a guy from the early 5th Century, Jerome.... Once again its about the truth of God's beautiful nature!
If you compare the Dead Sea scrolls to the Septuagint for the passage of Isaiah 53 it reads nothing like the Hellenistic pagan Septuagint. What you said was correct until the Dead Sea scrolls were unveiled. I am not a proponent of the penal substitution theory but I just wanted to let you know that we have an older version of Isaiah 53 than the Septuagint and it’s not at all similar
Jesus became a curse for us per Gal 3:13. Said curse was distributed via the Father’s divine decree to recipients of said curse per Deut 28. Thus, it logically follows that Christ was subject to God’s wrath, administered through Satanic agency, and that said sacrifice served as a propitiation (appeasement) for God per Rom 3:25. Fulfilling the OT shadow of the Mercy Seat per Heb 9:5. The blood serving as both a functional “covering” & a cleansing agent. Unfortunately none of these aspects were addressed in the video, and I fear that we are taking biblical truths concerning Ransom Theory and weaponizing them against the Penal aspects, which just so happen to be the lynch pin of the Christian faith.
How are they the lynchpin of the Christian faith if nobody taught them as that for hundreds of years in the Early Church? I've never seen anyone from the Early Church explain Gal 3:13 like you explained it. I have grappled with this scripture since quite some time and I do believe your interpretation could be true but it seems really unlikely to me.
@@timothy6828 The question is, are we to appeal to the Scriptures themselves as our standard of faith and practice, or are we to suspend our views of the Scriptures until we have a sufficient and proper commentary on a particular passage from the ANF? I have no problem allowing commentaries from the Early Church to help illuminate passages from the word, but if our ability to interpret Scripture becomes solely interdependent upon them, then we err, as their writing and commentaries, however useful, are ultimately not inspired. Whether we have a record of the ANF clearly unpacking a particular doctrine or not, since this teaching is in the scriptures themselves, and hence is logically deduced from them we can rest in the legitimacy of the claim, because Paul the Apostle himself taught it.
Now whether the Early Church sufficiently carried forth Paul’s understanding with the same degree of forcefulness of emphasis is another matter, but I would argue that the ANF commentaries are to be under submission to Paul’s letters in this particular instance.
@@defenselesslamb No, to me there is no question about the authority of the scriptures, don't misunderstand me. But what you may be seeing as clearly taught by Paul, I do not. Hence my question to you regarding the scriptures. I would love to hear your answer. I'd rather have something logically deduced from the scriptures by someone from the 21st century than something which isn't that logical from two thousand years earlier, believe me.
Would I be correct in assuming that he is not denying that the beliefs of early Christians were impacted by Greek philosophy but that he is really just cautioning us against being quick to accuse certain beliefs as being the product of Greek philosophy influence? One of the things that I have been taught is that the belief that a truly perfect God cannot experience any changes that are internal to God Himself finds it’s origin in pagan Greek philosophy and that Augustine was instrumental in making that belief widely accepted in the church. The belief that God is immutable to the point that He cannot change His mind, cannot experience changes in His knowledge, cannot experience changes in His emotions that might cause Him to consider changing His mind, and who cannot react but who can only act is a belief that we need to examine in light of the scriptures to see if it is truly biblical or forced upon the scriptures by way of Greek philosophy.
David the payment has not already been paid at the Cross, as Jesus was pardoned as sinless in the new covenant, and as Jesus was wrongly cursed he could pardon our sins.
That it pleased God to bruise His Son in Isa 53:10, I have always thought of as God being pleased of His Son taking on himself our sins on the cross, out of love for us and His Son. Not that God would in some way enjoy to punish His Son. But interesting that it might even be the wrong translation of Isa 53:10.
Sacrifices to make clean for Holy space. Even the items in the temple is sprinkled w blood, common objects and common humans ritually become clean to be in the Holy presence of YHWH.
Here's a few links from their actual writings.... Introduction to the Didache ua-cam.com/video/63TZb0_syH8/v-deo.html "Reading of the Didache" ua-cam.com/video/l0sRzwEO1hY/v-deo.html What the First Christians Believed About Baptism ua-cam.com/video/K9RGxS4wkMI/v-deo.html
Yes. Households in the book of Acts shows that. And the earliest historic findings from churches in the 2nd and 3rd century shows the baptism of infants and no evidence that that was a change from the beginning of the church.
David in Hebrews 9:22 there is no remission of sins, it is a remission or change of covenant, there are no sins in the Greek. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity'.
Concept of soul in Hebrew thought is Breath. God breathed on man and he became a living soul. Many animal are nephesh. Or soulish. Soul is then animating power by YHWH.
Many dwellings promised. How bout the New Jerusalem? He will return. The Parousia and take us to it. The Edenic plan will be restored where Heaven and Earth are together.
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” 2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV Clear substitution verse. David can’t explain it as stated because his theology doesn’t agree with clear scripture.
Oh my gosh, this is powerful about the two different words chosen in the two different Old Testament translations, one from the days of the Apostles and the other from a guy from the early 5th Century, Jerome.... Once again its about the truth of God's beautiful nature!
If you compare the Dead Sea scrolls to the Septuagint for the passage of Isaiah 53 it reads nothing like the Hellenistic pagan Septuagint. What you said was correct until the Dead Sea scrolls were unveiled. I am not a proponent of the penal substitution theory but I just wanted to let you know that we have an older version of Isaiah 53 than the Septuagint and it’s not at all similar
When doing in-depth study of the OT I prefer the LXX
Jesus became a curse for us per Gal 3:13. Said curse was distributed via the Father’s divine decree to recipients of said curse per Deut 28. Thus, it logically follows that Christ was subject to God’s wrath, administered through Satanic agency, and that said sacrifice served as a propitiation (appeasement) for God per Rom 3:25. Fulfilling the OT shadow of the Mercy Seat per Heb 9:5. The blood serving as both a functional “covering” & a cleansing agent. Unfortunately none of these aspects were addressed in the video, and I fear that we are taking biblical truths concerning Ransom Theory and weaponizing them against the Penal aspects, which just so happen to be the lynch pin of the Christian faith.
How are they the lynchpin of the Christian faith if nobody taught them as that for hundreds of years in the Early Church? I've never seen anyone from the Early Church explain Gal 3:13 like you explained it. I have grappled with this scripture since quite some time and I do believe your interpretation could be true but it seems really unlikely to me.
Also please explain further how you believe this sacrifice subject to God's wrath fulfils the shadow of the mercy seat? It does not logically follow.
@@timothy6828 The question is, are we to appeal to the Scriptures themselves as our standard of faith and practice, or are we to suspend our views of the Scriptures until we have a sufficient and proper commentary on a particular passage from the ANF? I have no problem allowing commentaries from the Early Church to help illuminate passages from the word, but if our ability to interpret Scripture becomes solely interdependent upon them, then we err, as their writing and commentaries, however useful, are ultimately not inspired. Whether we have a record of the ANF clearly unpacking a particular doctrine or not, since this teaching is in the scriptures themselves, and hence is logically deduced from them we can rest in the legitimacy of the claim, because Paul the Apostle himself taught it.
Now whether the Early Church sufficiently carried forth Paul’s understanding with the same degree of forcefulness of emphasis is another matter, but I would argue that the ANF commentaries are to be under submission to Paul’s letters in this particular instance.
@@defenselesslamb No, to me there is no question about the authority of the scriptures, don't misunderstand me. But what you may be seeing as clearly taught by Paul, I do not. Hence my question to you regarding the scriptures. I would love to hear your answer. I'd rather have something logically deduced from the scriptures by someone from the 21st century than something which isn't that logical from two thousand years earlier, believe me.
Would I be correct in assuming that he is not denying that the beliefs of early Christians were impacted by Greek philosophy but that he is really just cautioning us against being quick to accuse certain beliefs as being the product of Greek philosophy influence? One of the things that I have been taught is that the belief that a truly perfect God cannot experience any changes that are internal to God Himself finds it’s origin in pagan Greek philosophy and that Augustine was instrumental in making that belief widely accepted in the church. The belief that God is immutable to the point that He cannot change His mind, cannot experience changes in His knowledge, cannot experience changes in His emotions that might cause Him to consider changing His mind, and who cannot react but who can only act is a belief that we need to examine in light of the scriptures to see if it is truly biblical or forced upon the scriptures by way of Greek philosophy.
David the payment has not already been paid at the Cross, as Jesus was pardoned as sinless in the new covenant, and as Jesus was wrongly cursed he could pardon our sins.
That it pleased God to bruise His Son in Isa 53:10, I have always thought of as God being pleased of His Son taking on himself our sins on the cross, out of love for us and His Son. Not that God would in some way enjoy to punish His Son.
But interesting that it might even be the wrong translation of Isa 53:10.
It’s not a wrong translation. This dude is dangerous in that he’s saying we don’t have an inerrant Bible today.
The many dwelling passage, Jesus referred to could be the new Jerusalem coming down.
Sacrifices to make clean for Holy space. Even the items in the temple is sprinkled w blood, common objects and common humans ritually become clean to be in the Holy presence of YHWH.
Did the early church baptize infants or children?
no
Here's a few links from their actual writings....
Introduction to the Didache
ua-cam.com/video/63TZb0_syH8/v-deo.html
"Reading of the Didache"
ua-cam.com/video/l0sRzwEO1hY/v-deo.html
What the First Christians Believed About Baptism
ua-cam.com/video/K9RGxS4wkMI/v-deo.html
Yes. Households in the book of Acts shows that. And the earliest historic findings from churches in the 2nd and 3rd century shows the baptism of infants and no evidence that that was a change from the beginning of the church.
No
David in Hebrews 9:22 there is no remission of sins, it is a remission or change of covenant, there are no sins in the Greek. I have a Ytube video series 'Myths in so-called Christianity'.
Concept of soul in Hebrew thought is Breath. God breathed on man and he became a living soul. Many animal are nephesh. Or soulish. Soul is then animating power by YHWH.
Many dwellings promised. How bout the New Jerusalem?
He will return. The Parousia and take us to it. The Edenic plan will be restored where Heaven and Earth are together.
“For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”
2 Corinthians 5:21 KJV
Clear substitution verse. David can’t explain it as stated because his theology doesn’t agree with clear scripture.
For us as Jesus laid down his life FOR his friends. Not instead of us.
Translating from the Hebrew was arrogant, lol
That is one of THE most absurd theological statements I've ever heard.