Replies

The penalty for sin is death. This is a legal requirement by an infintiely Holy God, and demanded by His infinite justice. However, God's infinite love for us devised a way using His infinite omniscience for Him to manifest His infinite grace upon us.

The means whereby this was accomplished is propitiatory, substitutionary and vicarious in nature. It is redemptive (Eph 1:7) in that the shed blood of Christ purchases slaves to sin in the marketplace (agaradzo I Cor 6:20; Rev 5:9), and it purchases out of the slavemarket (exagoradzo Gal 3:13), and it free's the prisoner (lutroo Titus 2:14; I Pet 1:18-19).

The sinner is redeemed from something, having been previously slaves in the slave market of sin. The sinner is redemmed by something (Jesus purchasing us with his blood), and the sinner is redeemed to something, i.e. taking us out of the market, untying the bonds, liberating and freeing us.

It must be understood that a sinner is anyone who transgresses in any part against the holy standard of infinite righteousnes as defined by the 10 Commandments. No man but one could ever hope to fullfil the entire law as initially set forth by the hand of God in stone. The second time, Moses wrote down what was dicteted to him. That is so poetic. Anyways I digress.

The matter is wholly that of legal requirements pertaining to the punishement of the accused who have been found guilty. Satan is our accuser, and God is the Judge and delivers sentance for the crime of sinning against God's Holy righteousness. God being the offended party, is also a infinitely jealous and infinite anger stems from that. Hence, he demands infinite justice: eternal punishment and separation from Him.

In God's eyes, as supreme judge and arbiter of all matters of the universe, all those transgressing His laws have been ruled to be guilty. This is not an emotional issue, this is a legal issue. The sinner is guilty whether they feel guilty or not. Ask any person in jail and they'll all tell you they're innocent (even the most egregious and vile father raper and mother stabber). This is an objective and not a subjective term.

However, legally, the punishment can be mitigated through expiation, that is if somebody else takes the punishment. Furthermore, it must be a propitiatory expiation, in that it must be satisfying to the offended. And intrinsically, whatever propitiatory expiation is made must be sacriicial, i.e., it must be somthing of precious value to the offended.

Furthermore, the sinner convicted in their sin, are slaves of Satan, and only a ransom of sufficient size can redeem them. The attonment by Christ fullfills a commercial obligation, and the legal requirement stipulated by God's justice. Redemption is confered upon the convicted and not the accuser (or offended party).

First off, a redeemer must be a blood relative and kinsman. Jesus was a true man in every sense). Secondly, the redeemer must be able to redeem. Because the sinner has transgressed against God, only God can redeem the the guilty. And lastly the redeemer can not be in the same predicamet as the one to be redeemed (Heb 7:26). The redeemer must be willing to redeem (Jn 10:17-19), must actually carry out the redemptive act.

The atonement is vicarious in nature, because as it is written in Jn 3:14, Jesus stated that all the sinner needs to do is look at the cross (akin to what those bitten by the fiery serpents had to do in the wilderness). no action by the sinner is required whatsoever, but to trust in the efficacy of God's Word itself. In fact, its even more simpler now than it was then, for we only need to figuratively look (in our mind's eye), and not have to physically go to Jeruasalem and gaze upon a cross (which doesn't even exist anymore anyways).

Chist's sacrifice of His unblemished holy life, in our stead, redeems us, confers forgiveness and remission of the charges levied against us, establishes a declaration of inherent righteousness (this is not acquital, but dismissal of all charges, i.e. justification), and reconciles our relationship with God (not the reverse).

There can be no remission of sin without the shedding of blood. The essence of life is contained in the blood. In Ex 25:17-22 and Lev 16:15-19 we see OT example of propitation whereby the blood sacrifice was sprinkled upon the Mercy Seat (the lid of the Ark of the Coventant), God pictured in His holiness and guardianship by overshadowing cherubim, saw his broken law through the shed blood and was fully satisfied.

When the first and second temple were built, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies once per year (and no more than that) to perform the sacrificial ritual. The high priest had to be absolutely purified according to Jewish Law as laid down by The Law (10 Commandments), in addition to the Lesser Law (all 650+ commandments). The priest entered with bells on their robes, and a rope tied around their leg. Only one priest was allowed into the Inner Sanctum at a time once per year. If the priest wasn't properly purified, or performed the ritual incorrectly, he was instantly struck dead. When the belss stopped ringing, the priests outside would pull their hapless collegue back out, and they'd have to go through the whole process again.

This transpired every year for thousands of years (with a hiatus between the first and second temples). However, at Christ's crucifiction, the veil, that was reported to having been as thick as a mans hand, and about 3 1/2 stories high, was rent from top to bottom. At that moment, even the lowest sheep dung shoveler could look directly into the very depths of the Holy of Holies. What the Jews did subsequently is immaterial, in that the whole temple was destroyed about 30 years later.

That the temple sacrifice is going to be reestablished at some point is a non-starter. Will the sacrifice be efficatious? No. When John the Baptist said, "Behold! The Lamb of God, that has come to take away the sins of the world!", every Jew that was present knew exactly what he was talking about. And at the very moment that he said that, lambs were being sacrificed throughout Israel.

The penalty for sin is death.

The penalty for some sins was death. There were four methods of execution, and if the criteria for execution (which are very stringent) can't be met then G-d carries out the sentence Himself. Then there are sins for which only G-d has the right to carry out the punishment.

However, there are other sins for which the penalty is lashes. But I doubt that the court was authorized to lash anyone for every single sinful thought a person had.

All Notzerim assume from the outset that chr*stianity is true and that the "new testament" is an addendum to the TaNa"KH. With this erroneous assumption (known in logical terms as "affirmation of the consequent") they then read the entire TaNa"KH from the perspective of Paul. But Paul was wrong and his ideas are alien to the Torah. And while we're at it, Catholics tell Protestants that "innate total depravity" is alien to Paul, and Eastern Orthodox tell Catholics that "original sin" is alien to Paul, so the Notzerim can't even agree on what Paul believed!

The Jews did not rip the "new testament" out of the Bible. Chr*stians added it. Once this is done and the reader accepts its authority from the outset the entire interpretation of the TaNa"KH is twisted into something alien.

Why do chr*stians "prove" their beliefs by quoting the "new testament" when the people they're arguing with don't even believe in the authority of the "new testament?" They seem to think its authority is "self-evident." It is NOT. You can no more "prove" the "new testament" by quoting it than you can "prove" the "holy qur'an" by quoting it.

Fundamentalist Protestantism, from which I was spawned and which I respect so highly, has spread a love and reverence for the TaNa"KH throughout the world. Unfortunately, it has adulterated it with the "new testament" the point that many people seem incapable of accepting a TaNa"KH that stands on its own rather than as a "prophecy" of another religion that was to come along later and "fulfill" it.