Jesus' plea for the Father's forgiveness from the cross - question.

[En Hakkore]

That was specific to Ehrman's decision about Luke 23:34. It hardly implies a wholesale embrace of his text-critical decisions. I disagree with him, for example, on his adjudication of the variant in Luke 24:51 --- I view the longer text as original to Luke's gospel whereas Ehrman takes the opposite position.

[1] Bart D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. Updated and with a New Afterword. Oxford University Press, 2011, 266-71.

Sorry, this citation was related to Ehrman's view on Luke 24:51, but I omitted the connection...

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Cynthia]

I would be interested in reading your 'labor of love' when it is finished. The genealogical information in Genesis 5 and 11 are obvious points of divergence between the two. Do you also get into the different synchronisms in 1-2 Kings vs. 3-4 Reigns?

Kind regards,

it covers Adam thru 135AD. I will mention when it is for sale self-pub.

 

[En Hakkore]

it covers Adam thru 135AD. I will mention when it is for sale self-pub.

Thanks... I look forward to reading it. All the best in moving the project forward to completion.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[CharismaticLady]

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Christ prayed this from the cross over people who were actively killing Him and who were not the least bit repentant about it.

In light of this, I have two questions for consideration:

1. Do you believe that the Father answered Jesus' prayer? I know the text doesn't say; but what do you think?

2. How should it inform our soteriology (if at all), by the fact that (at least on this one occasion) Christ used ignorance as a basis for which the Father ought to forgive sin?

It is the same for us. We don't have to be Bible scholars to be saved and do everything right, just live up to the knowledge we have. Philippians 3:16. Romans 14.

 

[CharismaticLady]

I would be interested in reading your 'labor of love' when it is finished. The genealogical information in Genesis 5 and 11 are obvious points of divergence between the two. Do you also get into the different synchronisms in 1-2 Kings vs. 3-4 Reigns?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

I'm just barging in here having read nothing before this, so please forgive this intrusion, but Gen. 5 is before the flood, and Gen. 11 are those after the flood.

 

[En Hakkore]

I'm just barging in here having read nothing before this, so please forgive this intrusion, but Gen. 5 is before the flood, and Gen. 11 are those after the flood.

Correct... and welcome.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[shnarkle]

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Christ prayed this from the cross over people who were actively killing Him and who were not the least bit repentant about it.

In light of this, I have two questions for consideration:

1. Do you believe that the Father answered Jesus' prayer? I know the text doesn't say; but what do you think?

2. How should it inform our soteriology (if at all), by the fact that (at least on this one occasion) Christ used ignorance as a basis for which the Father ought to forgive sin?

Jesus, or the author of the gospel account is pointing out a fundamental principle of the Mosaic law which Christ fulfills through his sacrifice, namely that sacrifice only remedies unintentional or accidental sin. Intentional sin was never remedied with sacrifice. To knowingly sin is to justify sin which Christ points out is an abomination (Luke 31:16).

Paul affirms the principle in the New Testament as well, but takes it a step further in Hebrews 10:26 when he points out that "there remains no more sacrifice for sin" In Heb. 9:15 he points out that the sacrifice of Christ only applies to sins committed under the Old Covenant which leads to one of two conclusions: 1. no one sins under the new covenant, or 2. those who do are eternally damned.

The first option sounds like good news. The latter one, not so much.

 

[CharismaticLady]

1. no one sins under the new covenant, or 2. those who do are eternally damned.

I love your first paragraph in your post. Here is some more to add to it.

The sin of 1 John 3 is prefaced in verse 4. Therefore 1 John 3:9 is a born again Christian, meaning they are Spirit-filled so will not break written laws as they are now written on their heart, or conscience. It is just not in their new nature. The only sins they would commit are trespasses unintentionally committed. Numbers 15:22-29. We are told that to have trespasses forgiven, we need to forgive others their trespasses against us.

But we still have free will. Therefore, if someone were to commit a mortal sin/sin unto death/willful sin of lawlessness they are choosing to be in rebellion against God. Hebrews 10:26-31 about those who "were sanctified," shows this is talking about Christians, not unsaved Jews as some believe. Seeing as it is not in their new nature, it is a very serious matter, especially when the writer of Hebrews proclaims what more sacrifice is there? The Spirit has provided an obstacle against yielding to a temptation to willful sin called our super-sensitized conscience.

 

[rhomphaeam]

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

Christ prayed this from the cross over people who were actively killing Him and who were not the least bit repentant about it.

In light of this, I have two questions for consideration:

1. Do you believe that the Father answered Jesus' prayer? I know the text doesn't say; but what do you think?

2. How should it inform our soteriology (if at all), by the fact that (at least on this one occasion) Christ used ignorance as a basis for which the Father ought to forgive sin?

Perhaps one would have to ask the question who is the them to whom the words are being applied in its rational meaning because there were at least a number who witnessed the crucifixion, and yet could not have heard those words because they were standing far off (Mark 15:40). On the other hand the Roman soldiers who were crucifying the Lord could scarcely have missed them (Matthew 27:54). Mark 15:40 includes Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Josas mother of James the younger who's wife is called Salome. Yet Mary the mother of Jesus wasn't standing far off when Jesus spoke from the cross in her hearing (John 19:26). The power to believe in Jesus as a propitiation in His blood shed on the cross is not a theoretical speculation. It is proven when people draw near to Him. Thats the evidence of a determined will of the Father to save some and what separates them in the sight of men is an ability to draw near to Christ to hear Him (John 10:27). After that drawing near by the will and determination of God can we receive faith to believe in Him as crucified for sin. The Roman Soldiers were a true witness because they didn't even know what they were doing when they did it. In the end all those who are chosen are beneficiaries of the shed blood. And, the extraordinary grace and mercy of God is that He even chooses men who are near at hand yet far from understanding.

 

[shnarkle]

I love your first paragraph in your post. Here is some more to add to it.

The sin of 1 John

It's difficult for me to present a quote from that letter because I can't help wanting to quote the whole letter.

3 is prefaced in verse 4. Therefore 1 John 3:9 is a born again Christian, meaning they are Spirit-filled so will not break written laws as they are now written on their heart, or conscience. It is just not in their new nature. The only sins they would commit are trespasses unintentionally committed. Numbers 15:22-29. We are told that to have trespasses forgiven, we need to forgive others their trespasses against us.

But we still have free will.

Paul doesn't deny that we have free will. He simply points out that it doesn't matter because it is God's will that is the deciding factor, e.g. not by will or effort, but God who shows mercy" (Romans 9:16)

Therefore, if someone were to commit a mortal sin/sin unto death/willful sin of lawlessness they are choosing to be in rebellion against God. Hebrews 10:26-31 about those who "were sanctified," shows this is talking about Christians,

Technically this letter is addressed to the Hebrews so the term Christians isn't relevant. All are One in Christ

not unsaved Jews

Or unsaved Christians, Gentiles, Star bellied Sneeches, etc.

Seeing as it is not in their new nature, it is a very serious matter, especially when the writer of Hebrews proclaims what more sacrifice is there? The Spirit has provided an obstacle against yielding to a temptation to willful sin called our super-sensitized conscience.

He's also pointing out a fundamental facet of the Mosaic law, i.e. sacrifice was never the remedy for intentional sin, or knowingly sinning. In Heb. 9: 15 he points out that Christ's sacrifice covers sins committed only under the Old Covenant which again were through one's own will and efforts.

Christians will openly admit that they still sin because they can't keep God's law through their best efforts. They never seem to be able to see that they are admitting that they are still operating under the parameters of the Old Covenant rather than the New which is according to God's promise, and the operation of his spirit indwelling in the new creation who are created to keep his commandments. They are created to do good works. The bible refers to them as "fruit" because they are produced systemically.

 

[shnarkle]

Perhaps one would have to ask the question who is the them to whom the words are being applied in its rational meaning because there were at least a number who witnessed the crucifixion, and yet could not have heard those words because they were standing far off (Mark 15:40). On the other hand the Roman soldiers who were crucifying the Lord could scarcely have missed them (Matthew 27:54). Mark 15:40 includes Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Josas mother of James the younger who's wife is called Salome. Yet Mary the mother of Jesus wasn't standing far off when Jesus spoke from the cross in her hearing (John 19:26). The power to believe in Jesus as a propitiation in His blood shed on the cross is not a theoretical speculation. It is proven when people draw near to Him. Thats the evidence of a determined will of the Father to save some and what separates them in the sight of men is an ability to draw near to Christ to hear Him (John 10:27). After that drawing near by the will and determination of God can we receive faith to believe in Him as crucified for sin. The Roman Soldiers were a true witness because they didn't even know what they were doing when they did it. In the end all those who are chosen are beneficiaries of the shed blood. And, the extraordinary grace and mercy of God is that He even chooses men who are near at hand yet far from understanding.

This reminds me of Christ's parable of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritan was a heretic. The Samaritan didn't understand, yet he's the only one who does the right thing. He's the only one who can be justified as only "the doers of the law will be justified". It is not through one's understanding that we are saved, but through becoming a new creation. Salvation is not based upon one's epistemology, but an ontological transformation.

 

[CharismaticLady]

It's difficult for me to present a quote from that letter because I can't help wanting to quote the whole letter.

Paul doesn't deny that we have free will. He simply points out that it doesn't matter because it is God's will that is the deciding factor, e.g. not by will or effort, but God who shows mercy" (Romans 9:16)


Technically this letter is addressed to the Hebrews so the term Christians isn't relevant. All are One in Christ


Or unsaved Christians, Gentiles, Star bellied Sneeches, etc.

He's also pointing out a fundamental facet of the Mosaic law, i.e. sacrifice was never the remedy for intentional sin, or knowingly sinning. In Heb. 9: 15 he points out that Christ's sacrifice covers sins committed only under the Old Covenant which again were through one's own will and efforts.

Christians will openly admit that they still sin because they can't keep God's law through their best efforts. They never seem to be able to see that they are admitting that they are still operating under the parameters of the Old Covenant rather than the New which is according to God's promise, and the operation of his spirit indwelling in the new creation who are created to keep his commandments. They are created to do good works. The bible refers to them as "fruit" because they are produced systemically.

Well I did like your acknowledgement of unintentional sins, but the rest we do not agree on.

 

[shnarkle]

Well I did like your acknowledgement of unintentional sins, but the rest we do not agree on.

Very few ever will agree because it spotlights the reality and no one wants to look at that; not even me.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Technically this letter is addressed to the Hebrews so the term Christians isn't relevant. All are One in Christ

I should address what I do not agree on. This is the one.

There is a difference between a Hebrew who became a Christian, and one who did not. So to say we are all one in Christ when there are some Hebrews that do NOT have Christ is what I do not agree with. Only the Hebrews and Gentiles that became Christians had any way of being sanctified, so the term "Christian" is VERY relevant.

I see I was too hasty. Now what I do agree with:

Christians will openly admit that they still sin because they can't keep God's law through their best efforts.

I understand what you are saying, but calling them Christians is a term they do not deserve. A true Christian is filled with the Holy Spirit, and empowered to keep the laws written on their hearts. They are born again. On this we agree. To become a true Christian those wanting to be Christians must repent of their inadequacy and self efforts, and humbly admit they can do nothing without His help. Ask to be filled with His power because you hate your sin, and want to live a life pleasing to Him. He will give you His Spirit. It is a life-changing experience. Also the word of God becomes alive and you will understand verses you had wrong your whole life. Those who love darkness, but do not want to pay the cost, will turn to the false teachers that only present Jesus as their ticket to heaven that paid their consequences for the sins you they still keep committing.

Christians will openly admit that they still sin because they can't keep God's law through their best efforts. They never seem to be able to see that they are admitting that they are still operating under the parameters of the Old Covenant rather than the New which is according to God's promise, and the operation of his spirit indwelling in the new creation who are created to keep his commandments. They are created to do good works. The bible refers to them as "fruit" because they are produced systemically.

I agree.

Those "Christians" who are not filled with the Spirit of Christ, can only use their own efforts which leaves them far from righteous or on the path to salvation. Only those with His Spirit belong to Him. Romans 8:9. All others that call Him Lord, He will say depart from me, I never knew you, you workers of iniquity. In other words, they still sin. Jesus was manifest to take away our sin, and in Him there is no sin. To those without His Spirit, are still slaves of sin, so repent. Having the Holy Spirit is not just something you are told to believe doctrinally. It is a real experience that you can't deny.

 

[CharismaticLady]

Very few ever will agree because it spotlights the reality and no one wants to look at that; not even me.

I was too hasty. I agree with most of it, and understand exactly what you are saying. And again, you are right that "few there are who find it." I rarely meet a true Christian.