The Authority of Paul

Originally posted by @thinkofone
What's "sad" is the dishonesty and deceitfulness that you routinely display on this forum.

More baseless insults and bearing of false witness?

Is that how you follow the commandments of Christ, tiger?

Originally posted by @thinkofone
C'mon jaywill. Just admit that you are unable to logically refute what I've been posting. Presumably if you could, you would. Instead it's just one ad hom after another.

BTW, how is your RHP subscription working out for you?

You habitually ignore all of the verses and passages in the Bible where Jesus speaks of His divinity, of coming down from heaven, of the miracles He performed, of the New Covenant that God was making with man in His blood, of His Resurrection, and on and on.

You deny all these verses and passages because you are a Christ denier. You deny Jesus was who He said He was - just the Pharisees denied Him.

Very, very sad - and not respectful at all of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice on the cross.

Originally posted by @sonship

Logically refute what I wrote about Matthew 20:26-28 on this thread. The key word there is "logically".

[b]Matthew 20:26-28 ?
[quote] "It shall not be so among you, but whoever wants to become great among you shall be your servant,

And whoever wants to be first among you shall be your slave,

Just as the Son of Man did not ...[text shortened]... mption is absolutely unique in all time and in all history. We have no part in doing that work.

C'mon jaywill.

On this thread Romans is the one who brought up Matthew 20:26-28 as some sort of irrefutable evidence that Jesus was referring to His "atoning sacrifice":
"What was the purpose of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion? Why did He say His life would be a ransom for many?"
IIRC you had done similarly in the past.

In my post I presented a logical explanation that when Jesus was speaking of "ransom", He was referring to FREEing those who abide in HIs word from the slavery of committing sin and backed it up with references to Luke and John. What I presented is consistent with the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry on the whole. It is a logical refutation of Romans' question. Matthew 20:26-28 fails as some sort of irrefutable evidence that Jesus was referring to His "atoning sacrifice":

Your claims of "FALSE DICHOTOMY" is not only a straw man, but sheer nonsense.

It's on page 9 of this thread if you ever decide to try to formulate a cogent argument against it.

Originally posted by @thinkofone

On this thread Romans is the one who brought up Matthew 20:26-28 as some sort of irrefutable evidence that Jesus was referring to His "atoning sacrifice":
"What was the purpose of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion? Why did He say His life would be a ransom for many?"

I dealt with this before also.

Going through passages of the Bible has no effect on you.
The word of God has no effect on you because you have made an idol of your opinion.

Why should I make a sport out of repeating over again to you evidence already conveyed? What the Scripture says has no effect on your heart.

That is serious.

Readers, when it comes right down to the event of His giving His life a ransom, it is clear that this is the new covenant in His blood shed for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:27-28; Luke 22:19,20).

Other aspects of His dying for us I have discussed in other threads. ThinkOfOne may attempt to suggest something contrary to this.

Originally posted by @thinkofone

He was referring to FREEing those who abide in HIs word from the slavery of committing sin and backed it up with references to Luke and John.

And you think this somehow refutes His own explanation of His coming crucifixcion at His table meeting?

He loosed (or released) us from our sins in His own blood, says Revelation 1:5.

"And from Jesus Christ, the faithful Witness, the Firstborn of the dead, and the Ruler of the kings of the earth.

To Him who loves us and has RELEASED us from our sins by His blood." (Rev. 1:5 RcV)

Both from the GUILT of sin Jesus frees us, and from the POWER of sin He frees us.

The word of God has no effect on your blinded mind.

Originally posted by @sonship

On this thread Romans is the one who brought up Matthew 20:26-28 as some sort of irrefutable evidence that Jesus was referring to His "atoning sacrifice":
"What was the purpose of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion? Why did He say His life would be a ransom for many?"

I dealt with this before also.

Going through passages of the Bible has ...[text shortened]... I have discussed in other threads. ThinkOfOne may attempt to suggest something contrary to this.

Readers, when it comes right down to the event of His giving His life a ransom, it is clear that this is the new covenant in His blood shed for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:27-28; Luke 22:19,20).

To understand what Jesus is saying there, one needs to understand it in context of other things He said.

1) The word given as "forgiveness" literally means "FREEdom".

2) In John 6 Jesus also speaks of "eating", "bread", "body/flesh", "drinking" and "blood". wherein Jesus uses the metaphor of "eating flesh", "drinking blood" to refer to " the words that I have spoken to you". In short, one "eats" and "drinks" His words so that they will abide in Him.

3) In John 15 Jesus explains that "abiding" in Him entails "keep[ing] His commandments" (words).

4) In John 8 Jesus explain that those who "abide in [His] words" will be made "FREE" from committing sin.

So when Jesus tells them to eat His body (flesh) and drink His blood, He is really speaking of them eating and drinking His words just as He does in John 6.

So what Jesus means in Matthew 26:28 is "for [these are My words] of the covenant, which is poured out for many for [FREEdom from] sins" which parallels what He said in John 8 about those who abide in His word being FREEd from committing sin.

This makes so much more sense than Him making some really awkward reference to His future death. Especially in light of Luke 22:19 where He says "do this in remembrance of Me." He's asking them to do it in remembrance of His words - NOT in "remembrance" of His death which hasn't happened yet.

Also consider the definition of "covenant": 
The Idea of Covenant. The term "covenant" is of Latin origin (con venire), meaning a coming together. It presupposes two or more parties who come together to make a contract, agreeing on promises, stipulations, privileges, and responsibilities.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/covenant/

As such, it makes perfect sense that the New Covenant was conveyed with words. The gospel preach by Jesus during His ministry comprises the "promises, stipulations, privileges, and responsibilities" set down by God for His people. 

In Luke 4 at the beginning of the ministry of Jesus, Jesus declares that one of the purposes for which He was anointed was to "proclaim release to the captives". Once again this is about FREEdom - not forgiveness.

The bottom line is that those who abide in His word are made FREE from the slavery of committing sin. The gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry is consistent throughout about this.Everything points to FREEdom - not forgiveness. FREEdom from committing sin.

Originally posted by @thinkofone
[b] Readers, when it comes right down to the event of His giving His life a ransom, it is clear that this is the new covenant in His blood shed for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:27-28; Luke 22:19,20).

To understand what Jesus is saying there, one needs to understand it in context of other things He said.

1) The word given as "forgivene ...[text shortened]... roughout about this.Everything points to FREEdom - not forgiveness. FREEdom from committing sin.[/b]

Whisper, listen, whisper, listen. Whispers say we're free.
Rumors flyin', must be lyin'. Can it really be?
Can't conceive it, don't believe it. But that's what they say.
Slave no longer, slave no longer, this is Freedom Day.

Freedom Day, it's Freedom Day. Throw those shackle n' chains away.
Everybody that I see says it's really true, we're free.

https://www.musixmatch.com/lyrics/Max-Roach/Freedom-Day

From Max Roach's album "We Insist! Freedom Now Suite"
YouTube

YouTube

1) The word given as "forgiveness" literally means "FREEdom".

The word is usually translated forgiveness.
We have some English translations of "remission" and others with "release".

ThinkOfOne hangs a lot of hope on the possibility that different translations of the word besides "forgiveness" will be able to negate the teaching of Christ's redemptive sacrifice.

A little hill of an alternative translation he hopes to make into a huge Mount Everest of a case denying Christ's redemptive death.

A few English versions employing another word besides forgiveness there in Matthew 26:28

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed in exchange for the many for the release of sins.

Jubilee Bible 2000
for this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

King James 2000 Bible
For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

American King James Version
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

American Standard Version
for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many unto remission of sins.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

Darby Bible Translation
For this is my blood, that of the [new] covenant, that shed for many for remission of sins.

English Revised Version
for this is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins.

Originally posted by @sonship

1) The word given as "forgiveness" literally means "FREEdom".

The word is usually translated [b]forgiveness.
We have some English translations of "remission" and others with "release".

ThinkOfOne hangs a lot of hope on the possibility that different translations of the word besides "forgiveness" will be a ...[text shortened]... s is my blood of the covenant, which is shed for many unto remission of sins.
[/quote][/b]

Of course, then there are the facts of the matter. And the fact is that the word literally means "freedom".

That many translations opt for "forgiveness" or "remission" only reflect the bias of the translators. Christianity is not built upon the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry. Rather it is built upon the gospel of others. Naturally this bias skews many of the translations toward the beliefs of those doing the translating.

Strong's #859: aphesis (pronounced af'-es-is)
from 863; freedom; (figuratively) pardon:--deliverance, forgiveness, liberty, remission.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
aphesis
1) release from bondage or imprisonment
2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty
Part of Speech: noun feminine
Relation: from G863

Pasted from <http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Lexicon.show/ID/G859/aphesis.htm>

What is particularly telling is how the exact same word is translated in a verse I cited from Luke 4:
18“THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS UPON ME,
BECAUSE HE ANOINTED ME TO PREACH THE GOSPEL TO THE POOR.
HE HAS SENT ME TO PROCLAIM RELEASE TO THE CAPTIVES,
AND RECOVERY OF SIGHT TO THE BLIND,
TO SET FREE THOSE WHO ARE OPPRESSED,

No translations that I know of translates the exact same word as "forgiveness" in Luke 4:18.

The fact remains that the translation as "freedom" is entirely consistent with the gospel preached by Jesus during His ministry while "forgiveness" is not.

"[R]elease [/b]or freedom or [/b] remission" instead of "forgiveness" provides no powerful ground to deny Christ's redemptive death.

So ToO reaches for reinforcement in John chapter 6. Plenty there about Jesus teaching His believers to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

What ToO wants us to assume here is that EVERY instance of Christ speaking of His death MUST clearly also speak about the redeeming aspect of His blood.

That is an arbitrary rule that does not have to happen.

It is pretty clear that to those who could stay along enough to hear Jesus out, He was emphasizing that His WORD taken in was the way to eat His flesh and drink His blood.

"But Jesus, knowing in Himself that His disciples were murmuring about this ..."

That is murmuring about His teaching that if they did not eat His flesh and drink His blood they had no divine life in them.

" ... His disciples were murmuring about this, said to them, Does this stumble you?

Then what if you saw the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I speak to you are spirit and are life." (John 6:61-63)

1.) Not EVERY time Jesus mentions His death does He have to tie it to the purchasing nature of His redemtion.

He sometimes mentioned His death related to other aspects of salvation. And so does the Apostle Paul mention His death with regard to other benefits to the saved.

2.) Though ToO grasps at this to say "See! See! He says nothing about His death paying for anything" it backfires on him. That is because Jesus indicates the He will ascend to the right hand of God where He was before.

This implies:
a.) Resurrection (which ToO hates),
b.) The Lordship of Jesus (which ToO also hates),
b.) The exaltation of Jesus (which ToO hates),
c.) The continued AVAILABILITY of Jesus through His living words (which ToO denies).

Though the discussion in John 6 may not elaborate on the purchasing aspect of His redeeming blood, it does teach Christ predicting - His death, His resurrection, His ascension, His enthronement, His divine life giving ministry before and after these events.

The Spirit gives life because -

"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)

He came to give God's divine life to people and that more abundantly (John 10:10). And He does so in resurrection and ascension after His death by means of people internalizing in belief His words.

He dies and resurrection in order to INDWELL.
This chapter is about Almighty God incarnate in humanity emphatically saying to take in God, the eternal Person, you have to "eat" Jesus the man.

Strong's #859: aphesis (pronounced af'-es-is)
from 863; freedom; (figuratively) pardon:--deliverance, forgiveness, liberty, remission.

Thayer's Greek Lexicon:
aphesis
1) release from bondage or imprisonment
2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty

All to which proves the redeeming nature of His death.
[my bolding]

Amen.

Then what if you saw the Son of Man ascending to where He was before?

In other words, Jesus was saying - "Does this shock you? What about seeing Me AFTER I am dead, rise to life again and be exalted to the highest peak with God?"

His blood is here.
His body is there.
The blood from the body in separation signifying SURE death.

Yet afterwards, something amazing. He rises and is exalted to where He was before in Heaven.

Yet He will come to dwell in them too by means of His living and true words. He is in His words. His words give convey the Holy Spirit into men's being.

Christ mentions other aspects of His dying at times.
This does not mean there is no redemptive death on His cross. It means His death is including other wonderful blessings.

Then ToO grasps at Luke 4:18 everywhere not translating the word as forgiveness.

This is suppose to be a knockdown case that Jesus did not die a redemptive death.

Before Jesus went to the cross He had a ministry of bringing the release of the Jubilee to sinners. He taught setting free, healed setting free, spoke setting free, fed setting free, proclaimed, preached, worked, sent His disciples for the purpose of setting FREE.

Somehow ThinkOfOne hopes all this will make His death and resurrection have nothing to do with setting free by redemption.

No, His death and resurrection, His exaltation and descending as the Spirit and His indwelling is a continuation and even intensification of His work of bring the "Jubilee" of release to men and women.

In other words He paid the uttermost price to continue His work of setting men free. And under God's sovereignty even man's opposition to Him and His work, under providence only extended His work of setting sinners free.

NOTHING taught in Luke chapter 4 makes null and void His establishing the new covenant of release in His redeeming death also.

Luke 22:20 -

"And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying,

This cup is the new covenant established in My blood, which is being poured out for you."

... to continue to set men free from the guilt and power of sin.

Naturally this bias skews many of the translations toward the beliefs of those doing the translating.

We have in the book of Acts the first gospel messages preached by the disciples of Jesus.

ThinkOfOne would have us believe that what Acts records is bias skewing incorrectly the gospel message.

Peter, standing with the other apostles on the day of Pentecost cannot be trusted to have accurately preached the message Jesus wanted them to announce.

A few points only from Peter's first gospel message:

1.) Peter reminds the inhabitants of Jerusalem of the miraculous nature of Christ's ministry.

"Men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus the Nazarene, a man shown by God to you to be approved by works of power and wonders and signs, which God did through Him in your midst, even as you know - " (Acts 2:22)

2.) He was killed according to God's foreknowledge -

"This man, delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you, through the hand of lawless men, nailed to a cross and killed." (v.23)

3.) God raised Him from the dead -

"Whom God has raised up, having loosed the pangs of death, since it was not possible for Him to be held by it." (v.24) ... "This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are witnesses." (v.32)