3 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne================================
Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Interestingly enough, "aphesis", the word translated here as "forgiveness" literally means "freedom". So, literally it's "freedom from sin." Not "forgiveness", but "freedom".
“Freedom” as in the following:
"If you continue in My wo l (truth) will make you free. Jesus teaches freedom from committing sin.[/b]
Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Interestingly enough, "aphesis", the word translated here as "forgiveness" literally means "freedom". So, literally it's "freedom from sin." Not "forgiveness", but "freedom".
================================
It is clear in the teaching of forgiveness that Christ wants His disciples to be willing to forgive one another unlimited number of times:
"Then Peter came and said to Him, Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?
Jesus said to him, I do not say to you, Up to seven times, but, Up to seventy times seven." (Matthew 18:21,22)
Had Jesus meant that His disciples would find it impossible to commit an offense there would be no need to teach about a virtually boundless capacity to re-forgive.
Christ makes preparation for the possibility that His followers might commit repeated offense against one another.
It is not normal that they would. But He accomodates for them if they should.
=============================
“Freedom” as in the following:
"If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free...Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin. The slave does not remain in the house forever;"
=============================
The truth is Jesus Himself as a living Person - "Jesus said to him, I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father except through Me." (John 14:6)
The truth will make you free means that Jesus the living Person will make you free. You have been evading acknolwedging whether Jesus is alive. I assume you do not believe that Jesus lives today.
Without the living Person of Jesus no one can be made free from their sins in any regard.
One would think that for the Son to continue in the house forever would indicate that the Son of God does not cease to exist but continues to live forever.
You give lip service to a passage which at heart you do not believe.
===========================
How is the slave freed from committing sin? By continuing in His word. By knowing the truth. "The truth will make you free". Knowing the eternal (truth) will make you free. Jesus teaches freedom from committing sin.
==================================
Jesus said the truth was a living Person, Himself - "I am ... the truth"
And of course Paul being faithful to Christ's teaching also taught - "the truth is in Jesus" (Eph. 4:21)
Abiding in His word does not mean abiding in the word of someone who is dead and gone. It means abiding in the word of a powerful Person who rose from the dead and is living and available.
You give lip service to a passage which at heart you do not believe.
1 edit
Both Paul and Christ his Master taught that walking in daily practical righteousness is dependent upon Christ having been raised from the dead.
" ... just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we might walk in newness of life. " (Rom. 6:4)
The former sinner can walk in newness of life because working in him is the same power and glory which raised Christ from the dead.
If Christ has not risen from the dead, that enjoyment of His indwelling life does not exist and man cannot walk in newness of life.
Paul derived the idea both from Jesus' teaching and from his own personal experience:
"I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you. Yet a little while and the world beholds Ne no longer, but you behold Me; because I live, you also shall live." (John 14:18,19)
Even the regeneration of the believers is due to Christ's resurrection from the dead, says the Apostle Peter:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (1 Peter 1:3)
The New Testament knows of no righteous living apart from the grace and power of the indwelling Son of God, alive because He rose from the dead.
"The last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
This life giving Spirit is the same Spirit of truth that Christ said He would send and also Who is Himself in another form:
"And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Comforter, that He may be with you forever, [even] the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Hom or know [Him]; but you know Him, because He abides with you and shall be in you.
I will not leave you as orphans; I am coming to you.
Yet a little while and the world beholds Me no longer, but you behold Me; because I live you also shall live.
In that day you will know that I am in My Father and you in Me, and I in you." (John 14:15-20)
In His bodily resurrection Jesus also transfigured Himself into the Spirit of truth - "the last Adam BECAME a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)
Because He lives in His disciples as "life giving Spirit" they can live because He lives. They can live righteously by abiding in Him and allowing Him to abide in them. This is the grace of Christ indwelling the believers.
Jesus taught it. Paul learned it, pioneered in it, and also taught it.
THinkofOne does not teach it. He opposes it because he opposes the resurrection of Christ. At least he will hide his true belief concerning it. And all his exegesis indicates to me at least, that he opposes the indwelling of the living Jesus Christ.
It is far better to listen to the Apostle Paul because he pioneered in the experience of the indwelling Christ and faithfully built the churches on this teaching.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneInterestingly enough, "aphesis", the word translated here as "forgiveness" literally means "freedom". So, literally it's "freedom from sin." Not "forgiveness", but "freedom".
Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Interestingly enough, "aphesis", the word translated here as "forgiveness" literally means "freedom". So, literally it's "freedom from sin." Not "forgiveness", but "freedom".
“Freedom” as in the following:
"If you continue in My wo ...[text shortened]... l (truth) will make you free. Jesus teaches freedom from committing sin.[/b]
A couple things.
First, my Greek interlinear has the word in question as aphesin, and it is rendered as such in literally every (save one*, see below) source manuscript I can find:
Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
Scrivener 1894 Textus Receptus
Byzantine Majority
Alexandrian
Hort and Westcott
Next, aphesin is translated as remission, pardon, the letting-go of (from sin), the removal of the penalty, etc., etc.. While we are certainly taught throughout the Scripture that Christ's work not only freed us from the penalty of sin, but from the slave market of sin as well, this particular verse is translated with a mind emphatically on the first aspect, i.e., forgiveness or pardon.
I can find at least ten translations (from the Latin Vulgate through Young's Literal Translation) which render the word as remission or forgiveness, but none that translate the same as freedom.
*In the one lexicon wherein the word is listed as aphesis (only StudyLight.org uses this form of the word), it is even there defined as follows:
"release from bondage or imprisonment
forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty"
The point being, of course, that while the spiritual life is intended to take us beyond a simple forgiveness of sins and into the fertile valley of a Spirit-filled life producing righteousness and communing with God, what is in mind here is the first step: the purchase.
Originally posted by SwissGambitIf you go to play in his sandbox and he kicks sand in your face and won't reciprocate. I am happy to entertain the problems in my theological position (since all theological positions have problems attached to them) but he won't do the same. As far as he is concerned he has a catagorically indisputable position.
I see what you are saying, but I think much of the frustration comes from the fact that you and ToO live in different theological worlds. For a debate to happen, someone has to go play in the other sandbox for a bit. I don't see that happen in the discussions between you.
All I try to do is raise some issues which case doubt on this and try and find out how he addresses them. He is very fundamentalist in his thinking and cannot entertain anything else.
In any case he won't even tell you where his sandbox is half the time - he won't even say if he actually believes in God at all.
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]I see nothing in this post giving a substantial rebuttal to what I wrote about [b] Matthew 18:23-35.
[b]=============================
I took your usage of "dispensational punishment" as necessarily including the concept that those who profess belief cannot be lost. My assertion was within this framework. Is this not true? The passage from Matthew 18 does not necessarily demonstrate support of this concept nor does the earlier passage from Matthew 24 n ted rich young ruler forword to the kingdom of God.
Both passages have been addressed.
Saying it is "not necessarily" is too easy if one does not present reasons.[/b]
You made the following assertion:
"This proves Jesus taught of what I call 'dispensational punishment'.
What is not substantial is your assertion. Your assertion consists of speculation which falls well short of PROOF. You've taken a passage where Jesus teaches about the hypocrisy of expecting forgiveness and not being willing to give it. He does not teach that those who profess belief cannot be lost. He merely teaches that such hypocrites will be punished.
The rich young ruler has already been addressed.
With man it is impossible. But with God the most difficult thing is possible. Mainly that the rich can enter into eternal life / into the kingom of God.
Thus grace is the working of God which can bring such as the dejected rich young ruler forword to the kingdom of God.
Both passages have been addressed.
Jesus told the rich young ruler that in order for him to obtain "eternal life" he MUST keep the commandments and give up his current lifestyle. If all that was required was for the rich young ruler to profess belief, then Jesus lied to him. For your assertion to be correct, Jesus would have to be a liar. Is this your belief?
You also never addressed the fact that the rich young ruler, Jesus and the disciples used "eternal life", "kingdom of heaven", "kingdom of God" and "saved" interchangeably.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill[/b]Yes, teaches His disciples to forgive and re-forgive. This teaching is completely compatible with His teaching that His true disciples will know the truth and be set free from the slavery of committing sin. Prior to being set free, there will likely be many sins that need to be forgiven.
[b]================================
Matthew 26:28
For this is My blood of the covenant, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins.
Interestingly enough, "aphesis", the word translated here as "forgiveness" literally means "freedom". So, literally it's "freedom from sin." Not "forgiveness", but "freedom".
====================
You give lip service to a passage which at heart you do not believe.
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFrom what I can tell, the difference between "aphesis" and "aphesin" is grammatical, with them essentially having the same meaning.
[b]Interestingly enough, "aphesis", the word translated here as "forgiveness" literally means "freedom". So, literally it's "freedom from sin." Not "forgiveness", but "freedom".
A couple things.
First, my Greek interlinear has the word in question as aphesin, and it is rendered as such in literally every (save one*, see below) source manuscr s and communing with God, what is in mind here is the first step: the purchase.[/b]
Note that the first definition you provided is "release from bondage or imprisonment" which is essentially synonymous with "freedom" and which works well with the idea of being set free from the slavery, i.e. "bondage or imprisonment" of committing sin. The same with "the letting go from from".
Another place that "aphesin" is used is here where it is translated as "remission":
Mark 1:4
John came, who baptized in the wilderness and preached the baptism of repentance unto remission of sins.
I came across something that posited that a stronger translation would be be along the lines of "freedom" or "release" sin, since repentance properly points to "turning away" from sin rather than remorse. So it would be "repentance unto freedom from sin".
That said, I wouldn't be shocked if Jesus meant it as "remission" or "forgiveness". Prior to a true disciple's knowing the truth that frees him from the slavery of committing sin, there are no doubt many sins that need to be forgiven.
Regardless Jesus clearly taught that one must become righteous, i.e., follow His commandments, become one with God, etc. to have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation". Jesus does not teach that "professing belief" is sufficient.
17 edits
Originally posted by ThinkOfOne=======================================
I see nothing in this post giving a substantial rebuttal to what I wrote about [b] Matthew 18:23-35.
Saying it is "not necessarily" is too easy if one does not present reasons.[/b]
You made the following assertion:
"This proves Jesus taught of what I call 'dispensational punishment'.
What is not substantial is your assertion. ternal life", "kingdom of heaven", "kingdom of God" and "saved" interchangeably.[/b]
You made the following assertion:
"This proves Jesus taught of what I call 'dispensational punishment'.
===================================
By dispensational punishment of His believers I mean that after the second coming of Christ and before the beginning of the eternal age, Christ will deal disciplinarily with some of His saved people. These dealings are temporary.
=====================================
What is not substantial is your assertion. Your assertion consists of speculation which falls well short of PROOF. You've taken a passage where Jesus teaches about the hypocrisy of expecting forgiveness and not being willing to give it. He does not teach that those who profess belief cannot be lost. He merely teaches that such hypocrites will be punished.
=================================
Jesus does teach that those who believe into Him cannot be eternally lost. One verse I used to demonstrate this was John 10:27,28 -
"My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; And I give to them eternal life, and they shall by no mean perish forever, and no one shall snatch them out of My hand."
The operative words there are "and they shall by no means perish forever"
Take notice of unconditional assurance of escape from eternal punishment to the believer in Christ ... " BY NO MEANS " shall they perish forever.
The "slave" of the teaching in Matthew 18:21-35 is summoned to appear before his master. And this should correspond to Christians having to appear before the judgment seat of Christ to account for their Christian life after they were saved (Second Corintians 5:10; Romans 14:10,12).
"Then his master called him to [him] and said to him, Evil slave, all that debt I forgave you, ..." (Matt. 18:32)
This summoning therefore should be not during the church age but at the second coming of Christ. The unforgiving servant is punished with a temporary discipline:
"And his master became angry and delivered him to the torturers until he would repay all that was owed. So also will my heavenly Father do to you if each of you does not forgive his brother from your hearts." (v.34,35)
The operative words there are "UNTIL HE WOULD REPAY ALL THAT WAS OWED".
John 10:27,28 establishes that the one believing into Christ will by no means perish forever.
Matthew 18:34,35 establishes that some unforgiving believers in Christ will be punished UNTIL a certain condition of heart prescribed by Christ their Master is met.
This to many of us is adaquate to "prove" dispensational punishment. And helps us to understand why Jesus says "Blessed are the merciful for they shall be shown mercy" (Matt.5:7)
This showing of mercy is related to the dispensational reward of His coming kingdom. No one can obtain eternal life by showing mercy. The atheist who rejects the Person and work of the Son of God will not receive eternal life because he is a good humanist and shows mercy.
But the saved Christian, in terms of reward or discipline in the age preceeding the eternal age, may receive mercy because he was forgiving with those who offended him after becoming saved.
=================================
Me:
The rich young ruler has already been addressed.
With man it is impossible. But with God the most difficult thing is possible. Mainly that the rich can enter into eternal life / into the kingom of God.
Thus grace is the working of God which can bring such as the dejected rich young ruler forword to the kingdom of God.
Both passages have been addressed.
You:
Jesus told the rich young ruler that in order for him to obtain "eternal life" he MUST keep the commandments and give up his current lifestyle. If all that was required was for the rich young ruler to profess belief, then Jesus lied to him. For your assertion to be correct, Jesus would have to be a liar. Is this your belief?
==========================================
No Jesus did not lie. He told the truth in that with MAN IT IS IMPOSSIBLE BUT WITH GOD ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE.
Christ fulfills the law and Christ becomes the righteousness of every believer.
Now it IS true that Christ by the time He spoke to this rich young ruler had not provided an eternal redemption. But we see elsewhere His feeling of being constrained from fully accomplishing that entrance:
"I have come to cast fire on the earth; and how I wish that it were already accomplished!
But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how I am pressed until it is accomplished." (Luke 12:49,50)
The "baptism" here that Jesus was anxious to have accomplished was His redemptive death. It is by means of His death that He became the rightouesness of believers to enter into the kingdom of God.
Jesus is speaking to the rich young ruler with this sense of restraint upon His redemptive salvation. He has yet to receive His terrible baptism of crucifixion for the sins of man.
I believe that this is why when the disciples expressed astonishment that the chances for anyone to be saved were nil, Jesus could only look at them at this point. He assured them that it was possible with God.
When His "baptism" of redemptive crucifixion is accomplished with its life imparting resurrection His time of constraint is ended. And those who want to follow Him into the kingdom of God will be afforded a rich entrance.
==========================================
You also never addressed the fact that the rich young ruler, Jesus and the disciples used "eternal life", "kingdom of heaven", "kingdom of God" and "saved" interchangeably.
==================================
I did not completely ignore that, if you would read my post carefully.
This much is sufficient to establish Christ as the believer's eternal security on one hand, and Christ as the dispenser of rewards or punishments of a temporary nature to His redeemed servants after His second coming.
The verse that I interpreted from Matthew 18 I believe has been incorrectly applied to the Catholic notion of Purgatory. I do not believe in Purgatory. And the teaching seems to indicate that the servant is dealt with after the second coming of Christ - "Then the master called him to [him] ..." (v.32).
============================
You also never addressed the fact that the rich young ruler, ...
================================
See, Here is a problem ThinkofOne. When I anticipate certain points and begin to elaborate on them, you accuse me of irrelevant rants.
Now when I try to be more concise, then you say "Well you didn't address this or that problem over there ..."
This reminds me of a friend who handed in a thesis for a Master's Degree and the professor asked him "It's good but why did you add all this other stuff."
My friend replied "Because if I didn't you would probably ask for it." To which the professor said "You're probably right."
1 edit
ThinkofOne,
I suspect you will remain inconvicned about Christ as eternal security and also the rewarder of dispensational rewards or punishments.
One thing I do not believe you have as a criticism any longer. You cannot say the Apostle Paul did not emphasize righteousness for entering into the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:21; Eph. 5:5; 1 Cor. 6:9.
Actually reading through Paul's epistles would help a great deal to remove this bias you have towards the author of 13 of the 27 New Testament books.
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneRegardless Jesus clearly taught that one must become righteous, i.e., follow His commandments, become one with God, etc. to have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation". Jesus does not teach that "professing belief" is sufficient.
From what I can tell, the difference between "aphesis" and "aphesin" is grammatical, with them essentially having the same meaning.
Note that the first definition you provided is "release from bondage or imprisonment" which is essentially synonymous with "freedom" and which works well with the idea of being set free from the slavery, i.e. "bondage or sus does not teach that "professing belief" is sufficient.
------ToONE--------------------
But he also clearly taught that a follower of his would be praying to God for forgiveness from sin on a daily basis in the Lord's Prayer. This is a clear spanner in the works and you have yet to come up with anything convincing to counter it.
It's my assertion that he saw anyone who was trying to follow his commandments 100% as a follower , despite the fact that they may fail from time to time.
Also , until you come up with a clear definition of what you think sin actually is and what acts it includes then it's not possible to assess what you are getting at.
Does "becoming righteous" mean one never fails , loses patience or gets unfairly angry? Or is it somethig else? Could you maybe give us an example of someone alive today who you think is "righteous" ? Or maybe someone who others see as righteous but you don't?
What about Ghandi , Martin Luther King , Rowan Williams? Ian Botham (raising money) , Bob Geldof , Bono , Mother Theresa , etc etc are they not righteous on some level but also flawed and human?
Many people who have done great good in the world and also display solid moral principles also have contradictions and problems. None of them are perfectly righteous. Bono, just for example, has a load of dosh and has been accused of tax evasion - but he has also campaigned tirelessly for human rights and African debt and Aids. He can be arrogant and outspoken but he has also consciously used his position to badger world leaders into doing something that has probably saved thousands of lives. Although many accuse him of self aggrandisment , a closer look shows that his heart is in the right place and he does actually care. Early in his career because of the political stance he took, he had death threats against him. And yet , he is flawed and I don't think he would say that he never sins. Is he righteous or damned?
What about MLK ? Did he never ever sin after his conversion? Was he righteous or damned? If you don't like my examples - come up with your own please , but you need to stop this abstract theological monologue and start rooting your position in something more tangible.
Is there anyone alive today that Jesus would grant eternal life to because of their righteousness?
Originally posted by knightmeisterIsn't it possible that some people could believe that Jesus was a teacher, but not divine? They would probably focus on his teachings on how to live your life. Why should such a person care about the existence of God? And, even if they DO have an opinion on it, why should they be forced to present or defend that opinion in every thread?
If you go to play in his sandbox and he kicks sand in your face and won't reciprocate. I am happy to entertain the problems in my theological position (since all theological positions have problems attached to them) but he won't do the same. As far as he is concerned he has a catagorically indisputable position.
All I try to do is raise some issues ...[text shortened]... here his sandbox is half the time - he won't even say if he actually believes in God at all.
That's what tends to derail a lot of discussions here. People have a hard time focusing on a specific issue for an appreciable length of time. Instead, after a few half-hearted tries, the same old tired agendas and arguments come back out again. People want to preach [this does not exclude atheists by any means!] rather than discuss. And this is hardly limited to just you or ToO - it's how most of the threads end up here.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneNote that the first definition you provided is "release from bondage or imprisonment" which is essentially synonymous with "freedom" and which works well with the idea of being set free from the slavery, i.e. "bondage or imprisonment" of committing sin. The same with "the letting go from from".
From what I can tell, the difference between "aphesis" and "aphesin" is grammatical, with them essentially having the same meaning.
Note that the first definition you provided is "release from bondage or imprisonment" which is essentially synonymous with "freedom" and which works well with the idea of being set free from the slavery, i.e. "bondage or ...[text shortened]... sus does not teach that "professing belief" is sufficient.
Working well with an idea and the idea itself are two different things. Listen, I'm the first person to say that God's intent in freeing us from the slave market had further ramifications than simply getting us out of it. The spiritual life makes it possible to live a sinless life. No doubt. Possible, but not probable. There is potential and then there is actual. Actual never reaches potential as it relates to man's efforts.
The difference here, however, is that the passage in question is clearly and unequivocally speaking of being free from the penalty, not from sinning itself. What frees us from the penalty is the same thing as what frees us from the slave market in the first place: the work done on the cross on our behalf by the Lord Jesus Christ. The blending which you are trying to force upon it wouldn't make sense. In this passage, the Lord Jesus Christ is speaking to His disciples and introducing the new covenant. Namely, this cup--- His work on the cross--- would purchase the forgiveness of many. If He meant what you are here insisting, it would be something along the lines of...
This work I do--- represented by this cup--- is to make possible for many to cease sinning and therefore purchase their own redemption.
Absurd.
Blasphemous.
2 edits
Originally posted by SwissGambitthis is an excellent point, for Christ was known, first and fore-mostly as a teacher, a few references shall suffice to establish this,
Isn't it possible that some people could believe that Jesus was a teacher, but not divine? They would probably focus on his teachings on how to live your life. Why should such a person care about the existence of God? And, even if they DO have an opinion on it, why should they be forced to present or defend that opinion in every thread?
That's what te ...[text shortened]... ss. And this is hardly limited to just you or ToO - it's how most of the threads end up here.
(Matthew 8:19) . . .And a certain scribe came up and said to him: “Teacher, I will follow you wherever you are about to go.”
(Mark 4:38) . . .So they woke him up and said to him: “Teacher, do you not care that we are about to perish?”
(Luke 3:12) . . .But even tax collectors came to be baptized, and they said to him: “Teacher, what shall we do?”
etc etc
the problem is Gambit dude, as you have highlighted, persons are simply content to preach, which is not the same as teaching. teaching involves discussion, questions, illustrations, asking others opinions, reasoning. Far too often the cannon is loaded and we are all supposed to sing hail to the chief! It is almost incredulous that this state of affairs should have occurred, for Christ's methods are well documented in scripture for all to read. There are some notable exceptions, but for the most part what we observe is a descent into egotism with the most fervent megalomaniac having the last word.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneJust a note: “forgiveness” is definitely a false translation of the noun "aphesis". Furthermore, the OT is full of remarks regarding the law of aphesis (after a period of 7 years etc. etc.), as one can notice at Deut. 15:2 and Michaias 7:19; and there are also Heb. 8:12, Rom. 4:7-8 (on Psalm 31) and Acts 4:13, 6:12 and 10:43.
From what I can tell, the difference between "aphesis" and "aphesin" is grammatical, with them essentially having the same meaning.
Note that the first definition you provided is "release from bondage or imprisonment" which is essentially synonymous with "freedom" and which works well with the idea of being set free from the slavery, i.e. "bondage or ...[text shortened]... sus does not teach that "professing belief" is sufficient.
The false interpretation of aphesis (as forgiveness) was committed by Neophyte Doukas, who translated the NT in 1835. Doukas’ translation is false and in other levels that I will not discuss here, so I simply clarify that the Orthodox Greek Christians do not follow his interpretations.
According to the Orthodox Greek interpretation of aphesis (that is based on the exact meaning of the Greek noun aphesis and on the exact functionality of the Jewish Law of Aphesis as it is mentioned in the OT), if one just forgives without offering aphesis then he just keeps the debt in mind and whenever he feels up to it he is free in the future to start talking about it and acting as if the debt is still existing.
Since “forgiveness” is not at all “aphesis”, the Orthodox Greeks are preaching that Jesus did not merely forgave the sins of the humanity: instead, he took the sins of the humanity within him and he committed aphesis (he set the Human free from his sins forever), and at the same time he forgave the Human; Jesus took the sins of the humanity within him and at the same time he forgave the Human (Luke 23:34), because if he had the human sins just forgiven he would merely keep them up live ad infinitum in his kingdom.
Excuse me for the interruption, enjoy the conversationšµ