Disputed Passages

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Peter says he bore our sins in his flesh. Peter draws this idea from Isaiah 53:4 "Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted."

Figurative language. Do you think sin is something that can be transferred to another person. That would make it either a substance or a spirit. The former makes no sense to me, and the latter touches on blasphemy IMO to say that Christ became satan (who is sin).

 

[oldhermit]

Figurative language. Do you think sin is something that can be transferred to another person. That would make it either a substance or a spirit. The former makes no sense to me, and the latter touches on blasphemy IMO to say that Christ became satan (who is sin).

There is nothing figurative about it. You are reasoning dyadically. Scripture is quite clear that Jesus bore our sins for us in his flesh. Whether or not we understand how this is possible does not diminish the fact. I do not have to understand how God accomplished in order to believe he did. Christ bore our sin in his flesh on the cross, not symbolically but in actually. If Christ did not bear our sins, who did?

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

There is nothing figurative about it. You are reasoning dyadically. Scripture is quite clear that Jesus bore our sins for us in his flesh. Whether or not we understand how this is possible does not diminish the fact. I do not have to understand how God accomplished in order to believe he did. Christ bore our sin in his flesh on the cross, not symbolically but in actually. If Christ did not bear our sins, who did?

You do not see a major difference in saying: He bore my sin - and: He actually became my sin?

 

[oldhermit]

You do not see a major difference in saying: He bore my sin - and: He actually became my sin?

There is no difference. He either did or he didn't. Christ is the reality, not the symbolic. What he does, he does as the fulfilment of the all OT typology. This is the book of Hebrews.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Hey, if I am joking and hit the misspelling emoji/like button, that doesn't take away from someone in any way does it? Because I will probably be hitting it every six seconds when talking with EG...

 

[joefizz]

The thing I find interesting about those who embrace the long ending of Mark and that push it like a religious creed....they will claim the first two aspects, but NEVER have the faith to drink a cup of bleach to PROVE their faith.....

As usual you are "terrible" brother D lol!

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

There is no difference. He either did or he didn't. Christ is the reality, not the symbolic. What he does, he does as the fulfilment of the all OT typology. This is the book of Hebrews.

You do not see a difference in meaning if I say, in English:

You bore my nasty temper
You became my nasty temper

or

you bore my bad breath
you became my bad breath

 

[shrume]

There is nothing figurative about it. You are reasoning dyadically. Scripture is quite clear that Jesus bore our sins for us in his flesh. Whether or not we understand how this is possible does not diminish the fact. I do not have to understand how God accomplished in order to believe he did. Christ bore our sin in his flesh on the cross, not symbolically but in actually. If Christ did not bear our sins, who did?

I think that Christ bore our sins figuratively. How could he bear a disobedience?

 

[shrume]

I think that Christ bore our sins figuratively. How could he bear a disobedience?

I agree. It's the same difference as in 2 Cor 5:21. Was Christ "made sin", or was he "made a sin offering"?

 

[oldhermit]

I think that Christ bore our sins figuratively. How could he bear a disobedience?

"He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." 1Peter 2:24. Peter is not speaking metaphorically here. He is offering a statement of fact. This is not symbolic or figurative language.

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

"He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." 1Peter 2:24. Peter is not speaking metaphorically here. He is offering a statement of fact. This is not symbolic or figurative language.

Yes, He bore our sins - bore the penalty for our sins, our sins were paid for by Him. This doesn't mean He turned into my sin. He didn't become my sin - He paid for my sin in His body, bore the punishment I deserved.

 

[shrume]

"He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." 1Peter 2:24. Peter is not speaking metaphorically here. He is offering a statement of fact. This is not symbolic or figurative language.

Can you explain the particulars as to how he bore them? Were they strapped to his back? How big (volume-wise) is a sin?

Sorry for being facetious, but how could he literally bear sins...

 

[notuptome]

Can you explain the particulars as to how he bore them? Were they strapped to his back? How big (volume-wise) is a sin?

Sorry for being facetious, but how could he literally bear sins...

His Father imputed them to Him. The Father then imputed to us His righteousness.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

I think that Christ bore our sins figuratively. How could he bear a disobedience?

If you were drinking and got caught speeding and I was not drunk and I said, quick, change seats with me - I would receive a speeding ticket in my own name. I bore your lawbreaking. I did not suddenly become drunk. I bore the penalty so you would not have to. That's not figurative. I literally accepted to take the punishment that should have been yours. But I did not become drunkenness!

 

[joefizz]

I think that Christ bore our sins figuratively. How could he bear a disobedience?

I agree. It's the same difference as in 2 Cor 5:21. Was Christ "made sin", or was he "made a sin offering"?

Did you just agree with yourself?

 

[shrume]

Did you just agree with yourself?

Man oh man... It's time for me to sign off for the night....

 

[joefizz]

Hey, if I am joking and hit the misspelling emoji/like button, that doesn't take away from someone in any way does it? Because I will probably be hitting it every six seconds when talking with EG...

Gasp I just noticed....
You're stunned by "grace" and he's Eternal "grace"!
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

[shrume]

If you were drinking and got caught speeding and I was not drunk and I said, quick, change seats with me - I would receive a speeding ticket in my own name. I bore your lawbreaking. I did not suddenly become drunk. I bore the penalty so you would not have to. That's not figurative. I literally accepted to take the punishment that should have been yours. But I did not become drunkenness!

Agreed. Christ paid the penalty (death) for our sins. He became the sin offering for our sins.

He did not "become sin".

I'm outa here for awhile....

 

[Stunnedbygrace]

Shrume you made me laugh again but this time I couldn't stop!

 

[CS1]

The long ending of Mark.

That fact that it is in the bible is significant yet it lacks early manuscript authority. Has it been added? How do we incorporate it into the canon of scripture?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

is that Mark 16 was added or that the time frame of the KJV was a later date ? Textus Receptus was manuscripts dating after 500AD. We know other manuscripts were written before 500 AD

example :

this chart is ok but please verify :

MANUSCRIPT
PASSAGES
DATE OF ORIGINAL
DATE OF MANUSCRIPT
APPROXIMATE TIME SPAN
P52 (John Rylands Fragment)
John 18.31-33; 37-38
~96 AD
~125 AD
~29 years
P90 (Oxyrhynchus)
John 18.36-19.7
~96 AD
~150-200 AD
~50-100 years
P104 (Oxyrhynchus)
Matthew 21.34-37, 43, 45
~60-65 AD
~150-200 AD
~90-140 years
P98 (IFAO)[1]
Revelation 1.13-2.1
~90 AD
~150-200 AD
~50-100 years
P46 (Chester Beatty Papyrus)
Romans 5.17-6.3,
5-14; 8.15-25, 27-35; 10.1-11.22, 24-33, 35; 16.1-23, 25-27; Hebrews;
1 & 2 Corinthians; Ephesians; Galatians; Philippians; Colossians;
1 Thessalonians 1.1,
9-10; 2.1-3; 5.5-9,
23-28
50’s-70’s AD
~200 AD
~150 years
P66 (Bodmer Papyrus)
John 1.1-6.11, 6.35-14.26; fragment of 14.29-21.9
70’s AD
~200 AD
~130 years
P67 [2]
Matthew 3.9, 15; 5.20-22; 25-28
~60-65 AD
~200 AD
~140 years



AS WE study we have understanding it is along process to bring together the manuscripts . Textus Receptus was a later dated manuscripts. So the criticism is well founded however, is the authorial intent changed? Does the Textus Receptus or has the it been used by God? Is Jesus Lord? did He die ? Did He raise again? Is His Deity defined? Is salvation proclaimed? Is Jesus shown to be the only way of Salvation?

YES on all accounts​