tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.comments2024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOGNickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comBlogger5992125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-53217252624090641732024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:002024-03-15T09:07:15.798-07:00I will add yet another detail to this, which is th...I will add yet another detail to this, which is that Mary was already a believer in the Gospel, already born again, before this Luke 2:22 situation. This means that from God's perspective, Mary couldn't have been sinful before God at the time of offering this Sacrifice. By Protestant logic, Mary was already covered with the righteousness of God at least as far back as the Annunciation, thus She would never appear sinful before God for the rest of Her life. So offering the sin offering at Luke 2:22 couldn't be Penal Substitution if that guilt requiring Her to sacrifice was already imputed to Jesus in Mary's place. It is equivalent to saying Abraham had to offer up Isaac and then the Ram as a Penal Substitute, despite the fact Abraham already had Imputed Righteousness at least fifteen years prior. Nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-11470844019410195152024-02-14T12:02:41.692-08:002024-02-14T12:02:41.692-08:00Is the statement, "We are born with the sin o...Is the statement, "We are born with the sin of Adam imputed into us." accurate? Seems so. Heard a protestant say that. <br />When I hear "righteousness" is imputed, however, that sounds off. <br />If you have a sec. can reply your thoughts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-10615088346601909262024-02-11T01:34:10.513-08:002024-02-11T01:34:10.513-08:00Here are my responses
1. Of course Constantinople ...Here are my responses<br />1. Of course Constantinople and Moscow have Apostolic roots! This is accepted by Roman Catholic hierarchy as they full accept the apostolic succession of all Orthodox bishops. The Popes and the Patriarch of Constantinople hang out all the time. You seem to have a problem with lateral succession – but that means all the Catholic bishops in North and South America are in the same boat. Anyway, Orthodox have Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Athens as equally important ‘Apostolic’ sees.<br />2. If I’m not mistaken Jerome is often cited by Protestants for their canon and he is a Catholic (and Orthodox) saint. You are right that the 1672 decree of the Council of Jerusalem on Scripture is still being discussed but it is purely an academic discussion and has not affected the Scripture used in the liturgy. The Orthodox Study Bible, which is supported by multiple Orthodox bishops across jurisdictions, takes the traditional view. Anyway the debate is simply how much anagignoskomena is equal to the Hebrew canon. <br />3. All us Orthodox know that annulment is basically Roman Catholic divorce with some mental gymnastics. Our approach divorce is ancient and hardly worldly. I would say Orthodox are unanimous in our opposition to abortion for there is nothing to critique there. As for contraception we have a pastoral approach that doesn’t turn millions of Orthodox into hypocrites.<br />4. A few Orthodox are disputing Roman Catholic baptism as pouring/sprinkling is an aberration from the Apostolic practice of triple immersion baptism. This approach is hardly representative of broader Orthodoxy. Anyway there has been times when Roman Catholics have rebaptised Orthodox such as 13th century Bulgaria or Serbs during WWII.<br />5. Orthodox are aware that Councils like Jassy and Jerusalem aren’t quite representative of the fuller views of Orthodoxy as they were caught up with Latin/Protestant terminology.<br />6. The Popular Patristic series published by St Vladimir’s Seminary Press has published works by Cyprian and Gregory the Great but you are right that Orthodoxy tends to leans towards the Church Fathers who wrote in Greek due to habit. Augustine is tricky because some of his ideas do run counter to Orthodoxy. What I think is that Orthodoxy is willing to discuss them rather than just ignore them like Roman Catholics do like his predestinationist views, his advocacy of coercion against heretics and his error on original sin.<br />7. Orthodoxy has managed to sort things out in the last 1,000 years without the need for an ecumenical council. Even with its 21 Ecumenical Councils Roman Catholics are still a mess with contradictory statements (such as the Chinese Rites).<br />8. Orthodoxy believes in the historic Papacy (who had primacy but not supremacy) but not the Pope-Kings who turned themselves into supreme rulers and then went around attacking their enemies and declaring themselves infallible. I see no evidence that the Popes had to approve the appointment of bishops in the east before the schism.<br />9. Roman Catholics tend to bully and cajole Orthodox into councils in times of weakness and then wonder why they aren’t accepted. The notorious Synod of Diamper in 1599 against the St Thomas Christians springs to mind as does the bullying that happened in the Ukraine with the Union of Brest in 1595 and the Synod of Alba Julia in 1698 in Romania.<br />10. The brutal expansion of ‘Catholic’ empires like the Portuguese, Spanish, French and Belgians goes hand in hand with Roman Catholic missionary endeavours. The destruction of native cultures, the dispossession and the exploitation does a lot to discredit Christianity. The Spanish in Mexico is a perfect example. Orthodoxy in the last 500 years has been brutally attacked and repressed by militant Islam, Turkish nationalists, Atheistic Communists, Nazis and aggressive western powers (like the unprovoked Italian attack on Greece in 1940) so we simply haven’t had much opportunity to evangelise. We used our energy to stay alive. I do note that this is changing. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-63151392104242747102024-01-25T00:02:30.714-08:002024-01-25T00:02:30.714-08:00Schisms come and go. History is messy. I should no...Schisms come and go. History is messy. I should note that people are sinners -selfish, arrogant and short sighted but the Holy Spirit heals and brings unity. In most cases the schisms did not impede communion. The existence of schisms, even the current one between Constantinople and Moscow does nothing to diminish Orthodoxy.<br /><br />If I take a look at Roman Catholic history their response is to send in the troops - look at the Hussites who just wanted communion in both kinds. The Crusades against us Orthodox is an obvious example. The Marian persecution is another example where a schism over divorce was turned into heresy by papal blundering. <br /><br />Yes, Orthodox has its schisms but it was the corrupt pope-kings who fractured Christendom- first by going it alone on the filioque and then causing the Reformation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-28640432350682102292024-01-18T16:05:40.784-08:002024-01-18T16:05:40.784-08:00Very nice blog you haave hereVery nice blog you haave hereHoaithanh96https://hoaithanh96.tumblr.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-87964648347606459812024-01-14T00:05:37.920-08:002024-01-14T00:05:37.920-08:00More quotes:
//Deuteronomy 7:3 is also cited, bu...More quotes: <br /><br />//Deuteronomy 7:3 is also cited, but this verse applies only to the seven nations and in any event is not proof that the offspring of a coupling of Israelite male and Canaanite female is not considered an Israelite, only that such coupling should not take place. <br /><br /><br />//While the Ezra incident clearly stresses the Biblical perception of the evils of intermarriage there is no suggestion on the face of the text that a matrilineal principle is being applied. The question of why Ezra only sought the expulsion of the women and their children (as opposed to non-Israelite men and their children) does require explanation, but there is no need to read these verses as giving evidence of the Biblical origin of the matrilineal principle. As Cohen suggests it might be that the children of non-Israelite fathers and Israelite mothers were so obviously not to be considered part of the Israelite nation that there was no need to expel them. Alternatively the reason Ezra spoke only to the Israelite men is that these were the only people over whom he had jurisdiction. I will return to discuss the problem of intermarriage later, but it is important to stress that this text is not strong proof of the Biblical historical origin of an application of a principle (exegetical origins are of course something quite different). <br /><br /><br />//Apocryphal texts also operate in similar fashion to texts from the Bible. Examples of the insistence of keeping the ‘seed’ pure are common, unambiguous applications of any supposed matrilineal principle are absent. The Book of Jubilees for example does not suggest the Hebrew/Cananite couplings of Shimon and Judah result in children that are not Hebrews. (34:20). In fact while Jubilees does note that ‘Simeon repented and took a second [possibly Hebrew] wife from Mesopotamia’ (34:21)[15] there is no mention of Judah marrying anyone other than ‘Betasuel, a Canaanite,’ a coupling which in would, if the matrilineal principle were in effect, render all the decedents of the tribe of Judah paradoxically not-Jewish! <br /><br /><br />//Philo calls the children of both Israelite father and non-Israelite mother and Israelite mother and non-Israelite father bastards. Josephus is also un-aware of the principle<br /><br /><br />//One other pre/non-Rabbinic pair of texts warrants comment. Matthew 1:1-17 (dated between 70-115 CE)[17]and Luke 3:23-37 (circa 80 CE)[18] were both written by self-defined Jews who wished to make a claim for the noble lineage of Jesus. Despite their shared belief that Joseph was not the father of Jesus both trace Jesus’ lineage through Joseph, Jesus’ ‘non-father.’ These Gospels’ desire to lay claim to a worthy patrilineal heritage for Jesus is so great that they are prepared to ignore paternity.Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-1865713026888123102024-01-13T23:54:08.848-08:002024-01-13T23:54:08.848-08:00I found an Rabbi who wrote an article on the probl...I found an Rabbi who wrote an article on the problems with the Matrilineal theory. I will largely cite his testimony below: <br /><br /><br />The plain meaning of the Genesis narrative is overwhelmingly patrilineal – that is the child of a Hebrew father and non-Hebrew mother is considered a Hebrew. For one thing if Abraham was the first Hebrew and there is no record of Sarai/Sara converting then without patrilineality the story of our people would have been very short. Isaac’s wife, Rebecca, daughter of Bethu-el seems to be descended from pagan ancestry on both the side of Nahor and his wife, (Gen 24:15) and yet there is no questioning the status of her children as Hebrews. We do not know the genealogy of the mothers of Jacob’s wives, the Bible only deeming it necessary to tell us of their father (Gen 29:10); again suggesting the patrilineal principle is dominant. Joseph’s wife Asenat (Gen 41:45) is clearly an Egyptian (Gen 41:45) but his children, Ephraim and Menashe are seen as Israelites. The pattern of the avot is replicated in the rest of the Biblical narrative. Moshe marries Zipporah, daughter of the Priest of Midian (Ex 2:16, 21), Samson asks for Philistine girl for a wife (Judg 14:2), Solomon marries foreign women (I Kings 11:1-16) and so on, but nowhere is there a suggestion that the children of these couplings are not considered Israelite. Indeed Rehoboam’s mother was an Amonite women (I Kings 14:21) yet he ascends the throne of Israel, as does Ahaziah son of Jezebel, another non-Israelite. (I Kings 22:40). Of course rabbinic exegesis is unable to accept such heretical notions and this leads to creative attempts to ‘demonstrate’ that these wives did in fact convert.[6] But these efforts should be seen more as drash than an accurate reflection of the straightforward meaning of the text. <br /><br />http://rabbionanarrowbridge.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-principle-that-wasnt-re-evaluation.html<br />Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-25057271220688456112024-01-12T20:02:25.441-08:002024-01-12T20:02:25.441-08:00Would this be also correct? If Jesus(Begotten) wa...Would this be also correct? If Jesus(Begotten) was condemned to hell by the First Cause(Father) would this break the trinity? How could the Father be angry with the Son? This would break the continuity of the Trinity, it now becomes Binity. Finaly, once Jesus is resurrected, the church at that time, has made Jesus more important than God. In a sense, Jesus has become the First cause. Could this be the way Luther kept the Filioque? Jesus now is as equal to God? They now share the same properties. Before the Filioque, all had unique Properties and shared that same essence. <br /> My understanding of the trinity: It is a monarchal trinity as the Father is the first cause, the Son is begotten and the Holy Spirit proceeds. Thank you. Jean_Parisot_de_Valettehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04164020040980486679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-55259161824106174392023-12-30T18:37:45.166-08:002023-12-30T18:37:45.166-08:00I'm still struggling to get my blog to consist...I'm still struggling to get my blog to consistently show up in Google search results at all. Bing doesn't have a problem, but Google (who obviously owns Blogger) does. Go figure :-)Colin Causeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13885415330227725331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-87739323018141443962023-12-16T06:09:36.103-08:002023-12-16T06:09:36.103-08:00"This, taken plainly, refutes salvation by fa..."This, taken plainly, refutes salvation by faith alone. If you bring this up, Protestants will squirm and make excuses, but it really does expose a flaw in their thinking."<br /><br />I don't know who these fictional protestants are, but very clearly neither you, nor they understand what, "saved by faith alone" really means. I've been a believer in the simple word for over 40 years and it's really quite simple. I suggest y'all take off whatever tinted and tainted glasses are that you have on and just look simply at the word. Both of you need to put all your pet doctrines aside and just look at the word lest you nullify the truth by elevating your tradition.<br /><br />There doesn't need to be any big discussion about it; I always thought James made it fairly clear from another point of view. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12857223143373422512noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-83271980288611432352023-11-18T02:05:10.102-08:002023-11-18T02:05:10.102-08:00Wow so much is left out especially in John 14 when...Wow so much is left out especially in John 14 when Jesus is asked by Phillip to show them the father and Jesus literally asks Phillip, "have you not seen me? I am my father and my father is I. It is only through me that you will find the father. Jesus also says the father is working through him, it doesn't say holy spirit. Jesus also said from John 16:7 he would send the holy spirit" Jesus also said that "all that my father has is also mine" The holy spirit is the embodiment of God's power which also belongs to Jesus. Jesus is also referred to as the "right hand of the father" meaning he is equal to god. This can be found Hebrews 1:3, 12:2, Acts 7:55-56 and 1 Peter 3:22. We have to go through Jesus to get to god so the Filioque is the reason it exists whether you agree with a creed I tend to agree with the bible more. And I am catholic and see various mentions of the divinity of Jesus. There is no question of that so the filioque shouldn't be that big of a deal honesty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-83648985112938836362023-11-17T21:00:24.144-08:002023-11-17T21:00:24.144-08:00For the life of me I cannot fathom how ridiculousl...For the life of me I cannot fathom how ridiculously the West seemed to almost drop the proper understanding of the Theophonies of Our Lord. As a Western Catholic it actually causes me pain. I'd argue that the view of Christ as the "Angel of the Lord" was more than just common, it was virtually ubiquitous amongst the Fathers sans St. Augustine. I fear I can't quite understand how it came to be nearly forgotten when it is one of the few examples of a truly authoritative interpretation of the Fathers themselves! Niveous(Nicodemus)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06112652436361754591noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-55918386047304131852023-10-22T16:55:32.416-07:002023-10-22T16:55:32.416-07:00Good reading your posstGood reading your posstOut On The Shelveshttps://outontheshelves.tumblr.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-76976253698280099332023-10-05T01:27:18.667-07:002023-10-05T01:27:18.667-07:00Some curses (the first type) are eternal destructi...Some curses (the first type) are eternal destruction. The second type point to Christ (who endured something equivalent). <br /><br />It's not at all unusual for something in the Bible to be both something literal and a Christological symbol; the Judean monarchy is an important feature of the OT, and also a pointer to Christ.<br /><br />It's called a type or an antitype. The various tree hangings (including the generic sort, Absalom, and the thief on the cross) are all antitypes of Christ, being sinful people who endured God's wrath, and Christ being a sinless person who endured God's wrath.<br /><br />Allow this Protestant to accuse you of missing the point due to being hyperliteral.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-85066201717073560982023-10-03T19:00:30.172-07:002023-10-03T19:00:30.172-07:00I want to add a detail that I have just realized: ...I want to add a detail that I have just realized: there are many references to the "Ark of the Covenant" in the Bible. We know that inside the Ark was the Ten Commandments. This means the essence of the Covenant was the Ten Commandments. Nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-6677003865507148852023-10-03T07:02:20.078-07:002023-10-03T07:02:20.078-07:00The good thief was hung on a tree, so that means h...The good thief was hung on a tree, so that means he was eternally cursed, so damned to hell yet he was also saved. I can completely believe there are Protestants who accept this. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-66668870891728273212023-10-03T01:28:55.431-07:002023-10-03T01:28:55.431-07:00*cursed, not cured. Adam curing the earth is....pr...*cursed, not cured. Adam curing the earth is....profoundly unbiblical.Sean and Cherylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392106915700952371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-23757903337118642842023-10-03T01:27:58.649-07:002023-10-03T01:27:58.649-07:00Nick, most or all of the curses that you list *are...Nick, most or all of the curses that you list *are* grievous, irreversible, and eternal.<br /><br />"For example God curses the serpent, saying it will now slither across the ground" - Satan is eternally cursed.<br /><br />God curses the ground after Adam sinned, saying the ground will now produce thorns - The earth is eternally cured until it is destroyed and replaced with an uncursed earth at the end of days.<br /><br />Noah curses Canaan saying Canaan will be a slave and mockery. - Probably the weakest one here, the only one that is self evidently temporary. But grievous and lasted for centuries, and deserving of death.<br /><br />Elisha calls a curse on some boys mocking him, and a bear came and tore them up. - Death resulting from sin by enemies of God invokes permanent punishment, does it not?<br /><br />Jesus cursed the fig tree by saying it will never produce fruit again, and it withered and died - Explicitly permanent, from the mouth of Christ.<br /><br />2 Kings 22:19, Jeremiah 24:9, 25:18 (and most of the rest of Jeremiah), Deuteronomy 28:15 - all point to the sinful portion of Israel, the rotten figs in which nothing good could be found and needed to be utterly destroyed such that only a remnant would be preserved. Implication - these guys all died in their sins and went off to eternal punishment. <br /><br />These are in contrast to the general hanging on a tree. Your argument is stronger here, but the flaw is that the purpose of *these* curses are to point to Christ, not to a class of "temporary, don't-worry-about-these-particular-curses-laid-down-by-the-Almighty".<br /><br />So you have a default curse implication, which is hellfire, and a Christological implication which is nothing more than to point to Christ. <br />The default interpretation of what happened to Christ is therefore something equivalent to hellfire.Sean and Cherylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392106915700952371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-13074066053166651152023-10-03T01:06:02.418-07:002023-10-03T01:06:02.418-07:00Bump, I hope this isn't too long after the fac...Bump, I hope this isn't too long after the fact.<br />There are some serious flaws in the way this piece treats Paul's quotes. <br />Leaving aside the "empty set" objection - which makes sense - here you have Paul selectively quoting 6 different pieces of scripture, and all six quotes are the pieces that emphasise the sinfulness of man in a way that, if read literally, implicates everything individually.<br />So the question becomes, is this what Paul is trying to do?<br /><br />And the answer is a transparent yes, because any author that quotes six different pieces that have a little tension in them and quotes the same side of those six pieces in such a way as to present no tension at all is making an argument that these quotes represent the truth. <br /><br />Imagine, for argument's sake, someone quoting one piece from Galatians, one piece from Romans, one piece from Hebrews, etc, all to the effect that there is no real advantage in being a Jew. That person, rightly or wrongly, is deliberately arguing that there is no real advantage in being a Jew. It's a self evident feature of apologetic writing that can't be interpreted to support an opposite view, unless, of course, it is presented explicitly as an opposition summary. In this case, of course, Paul is right and is not presenting an opposition summary.<br /><br />"As it is written" makes his argument explicit too; "As it is written" says, "what comes next supports what I just said".<br /><br />The following passage points out that the Law can't save; that also is incompatible with the reading of psalms such that the Law has indeed made any OT figures righteous.<br /><br />Furthermore, while I'm firmly on the Protestant side of the fence on this one, it is worth noting that the RCC catechism, article 2010 acknowledges that man can *not* merit initial salvation. And a few articles earlier it affirms that the Law could only condemn, not save. <br /><br />This is going beyond Catholic teaching into an argument which logically entails bona fide Pelagianism (although I am not saying the argument is deliberately Pelagian in the slightest).<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Sean and Cherylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04392106915700952371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-14917892837177227112023-09-24T09:38:42.891-07:002023-09-24T09:38:42.891-07:00Very informative text! I aways wondered what exact...Very informative text! I aways wondered what exactly was special in having a dead body hung on a tree. Like, it is very painful yes, but is this fact enough?<br /><br />That view you showed do maje sense. Calvin take on it is duprisingly but a good one as well. Talmidnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-16397618501016548782023-09-20T14:33:33.871-07:002023-09-20T14:33:33.871-07:00Great readiing your blogGreat readiing your bloghayley from mad hatters nail partyhttps://madhattersnailparty.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-78608712393313110422023-09-13T13:23:13.037-07:002023-09-13T13:23:13.037-07:00The scientific refutation of darwinian evolution
C...The scientific refutation of darwinian evolution<br />Contents:<br />- WHAT ARE THE FACTS OF EVOLUTION?<br />1, A FUNDAMENTALLY SUBJECTIVE APPROACH<br />2, IT CANNOT ACCOUNT FOR THE ORIGIN OF ITS OWN ABILITIES<br />3, IT MANIPULATES THE GENETIC PROGRAM OF DNA<br />4, UNABLE TO ANSWER THE ORIGIN OF MUTATIONS<br />5, HE BASES HIS DOCTRINE OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION ON RANDOM MUTATIONS AND RECOMBINATIONS.<br />6, MANIPULATION OF NATURAL SELECTION<br />7, EVOLUTION'S LIE ABOUT SELECTION<br />8, MANIPULATING THE EMERGENCE OF NEW SPECIES<br />9, THE PITFALLS OF DARWIN'S THEORY OF SELECTION IN FIVE POINTS<br />10. THE PROBLEM OF THE EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT OF THE ELEPHANT<br />11. COMPLEX STRUCTURES BY EVOLUTION?<br />12. THE BIASED CHOICE OF ACADEMIC SCIENCE <br />13 EVOLUTION FOR SUCKERS<br /><br />https://darhiwum.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-scientific-refutation-of-darwinian.html<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-28547775003207753822023-09-10T21:32:01.842-07:002023-09-10T21:32:01.842-07:00I honestly cannot tell if your comment was AI gene...I honestly cannot tell if your comment was AI generated or not. It is nothing but a series of incomplete thoughts. Nickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453168437883536663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-75396690736897407662023-09-09T19:03:21.706-07:002023-09-09T19:03:21.706-07:00It's awesome you go rambling about everybody. ...It's awesome you go rambling about everybody. This is a necessity for the catholic faith. You have failed to explain the bible from a context. If you are going to criticize, you must also teach, but this is not your fundamental. When you reject a dogma teach them John Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4588905705506605875.post-39053443000604390162023-09-06T15:00:36.055-07:002023-09-06T15:00:36.055-07:00The whole discussion/debate about the Atonement co...The whole discussion/debate about the Atonement could be understood if we remember the Scripture that says, "God made Him to be sin who knew no sin"...which is actually a mistranslation. It should read "God made Him to be a sin-offering..." It is Our Lord's Blood (whhich = Life in Biblical language) that cleanses sin in us. God "sees" the Blood, Christ's LIFE poured out, which we are covered with in Baptism and receive in Holy Communion, and "passes over".<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com