[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: HE WILL BE FORGIVEN!!!!]]]]]]
Jeff Magill (jmagill@mail.gte.net)
Wed, 25 Jun 1997 20:31:22 -0800
>
>
>
> Jeff Magill wrote:
>
> yoel-
> You are saying that blood is
> necessary for forgiveness. That it is a prerequisite for forgiveness.
> And that Jesus fulfills the prerequisite.
>
> Magill-
> Not just any blood but ONLY the Blood of Jesus Christ The Lamb
> of God fulfills and satisfies the just requriements of the Law
> forever...
>
> I showed you good reason to believe that your assertion is absurd and is
> contradictory to Judaism and the Old Testament. (Never mind that your
> Jesus sacrifice is a beaten-up and blemished HUMAN sacrifice- deninitely
> taref [not kosher] according to the Bible).
>
> Magill- Not a bone was broken on Jesus Christ
>
> Again- "It (the flour sacrifice) is a sin offering. In this way the
> priest will make atonement for him for any of the sins he has committed,
> and HE WILL BE FORGIVEN." (Leviticus 5:13)
>
> Magill-
> Yoel, The Old Testament word for atonement means to cover but
> not to do away with completely. The Greek word for atonement found in
> the NT means to do completely away with; to erase; to make as if it were
> never there.
> Jesus Christ was the perfect and only acceptible sacrifice that would do
> away with our sins completely for all eternity. Because of Christ's
> sacrifice and the fuller revelation we have in the NT over the OT, we
> once again see that all the various offerings were pointing to the ONE
> Sacrificial Lamb and the Atonement He would make ONCE for ALL.
>
> Back to the original point. The two words used for Atonement between the
> OT and the NT are different. The NT word for Atonement (At-one-ment/ To
> be made one with Christ) is a much greater Atonement. Again, the apostle
> Paul understood this truth all to well when he said that the blood of
> goats, and bulls and rams etc. could never Atone for our sin.
> (Hebrews 10:4) In fact please read all of Hebrews Chapter 10. I am in
> awe of how much it all makes sense when Paul by the Power of The Holy
> Spirit explains the true purpose for the sacrificial system and why God
> implemented it the way He did.
>
> "The Old Testament conceals about Jesus Christ what the New Testament
> reveals. The New Testament is not in contradiction to the OT. It is
> simply the fuller revelation which brings to light why the Hebrews were
> required by God to do so many things that often did not really make any
> sense.
> It's so simple when you see though that they were always God's way of
> pointing to His Son Jesus Christ- The Messiah.
>
> Magill-
> We must also remember the fact that the OT saints were saved by
> looking forward to the shed Blood of Jesus Christ whereas we are saved
> today by looking back at this event which took place almost 2,000 years
> ago. As soon as Christ said, "It is Finished," the captives were set
> free and people were resurrected all throughout Jerusalem as Matthew
> describes the scene.
>
> Thus, the previous blood sacrifices of animals covered the saints until
> the exact moment in time and space when The Blood of Jesus Christ erased
> the sins of the saints, who put their trust in Him, forever...
>
> MAgill- Dano in his posting also brings up an excellent point and
> explains very clearly that you are forcing your interpretation from a
> premise that does not follow the full context of the passage. That this
> is the case is very obvious to me anyway.
>
> DANO-
> You keep omitting the MOST important part that causes you to take the
> verse OUT OF CONTEXT
>
> (Lev 5:11 KJV) But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two
> young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the
> tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put
> no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it
> is a sin offering.
>
> GOD'S MERCY. IF HE IS NOT ABLE TO... then and only then can the
> SUBSTITUTE be made. It doesn't say that you can bring either.. but
> if you can't BRING THE ONE then you are allowed to bring the other.
>
> Dano
>
> Magill-
> This coincides with the apostles misunderstanding where Jesus
> says that, "It is easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle than
> for one to enter the kingdom of heaven." Jesus' words were shocking to
> the apostles because under the Hebrew system, the rich never had to
> offer a sacrifice of two turdle doves or an epah of flour. They always
> could afford the more costly lambs or goats etc. so therefore God would
> honor their sacrifieces better. This was the false mind set of the day.
>
> The purpose of the flour was again due to the fact that God is not a
> respector of persons. There is no partiality with the Lord as Peter
> perceived through special revelation as is recorded in Acts.
> God would never impose a system which would exclude anyone.
Because of the religous traditions of that day concerning the
sacrificial system, the apostles were thinking that if a rich man
can't be saved than ultimately no one can be saved. Salvation is
therefore impossible.
Do you remember Jesus Christ's response? "The things that are impossbile
with men are possible with God. Jesus is stating these words in the
context of salvation.
Essentially, He is telling them inadvertantly not to worry. What you
can't do for yourselves, I will be doing for you in your place. Only
Believe.
"The things that are impossible with men are possible with God."
>
> AGAIN, ALL THE SACRIFICES REQUIRED BY THE LORD WERE POINTING TO THE
> ULTIMATE SACRIFICE- JESUS CHRIST!
>
This is my sincere conclusion. I can see this truth clearly and I can
rest in knowing that it is the correct interpretation. No one will
ever will be able to convince me otherwise. It's so simple to me and yet
so profound. I love it!
IN HIS ETERNAL GRIP,
JSM
>
>