I appreciate you isolating and treating this subject separately, What you have said is thought provoking and worthy of consideration, and I thank you for it.
There is so much here to deal with, I don't even know where to start, except by saying that I recognize that both the definitions of words you use and the propositional assertions posted are replete with terminology developed within the Protestant church since the Reformation. (Meaning, there may be much to unpack or untangle.)
I feel I must ask you what 'canon' you are referring to, when you say that, 'the book of Hebrews is not in 'our' canon'?
The "our" would be the body of believers of which I am part. On a larger scale, I have heard the pejorative "Red Letter Christians" applied to those who recognize the primacy of the words of Jesus. I am honored to call them brothers.
I get it - that you believe Hebrews to be authoritative. (And it would be a whole nuther riotous thread to discuss the problems with Hebrews.) But what I would have you first consider is why do you accept that the Roman Catholic Church should be authoritative in selecting your canon?
'For the life of the flesh is in the blood:
and I have given it to you upon the altar
to make an atonement for your souls:
for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.'
(
Lev 17:11)
And yes, I also recognize that you consider Leviticus to be doctrinally authoritative. But the book of Leviticus is championed by the priestly cast of Judaism. What of the prophets sent by God to his people?
Here is a verse I provide for you to consider over the next year or so. I believe it to be extremely important to the disciples of Jesus.
(Jeremiah 8:8 NRSV) How can you say, “We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us,” when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie?
The prophet Jeremiah is very clear when stating that what we think is the Law of Moses (i.e. Leviticus) cannot be trusted - that it has indeed been altered by the scribes (of the priestly cast). This is why God had to send His son. By the time of Jesus, Judaism had gone off the rails - completely (if indeed it had ever been completely on the rails).
I realize I am opening the proverbial can of worms here, but would leave you with one more verse to consider -
(Jeremiah 7:22 NRSV) For in the day that I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak to them or command them concerning burnt offerings and sacrifices.
(or 'looking towards - Hb. 'eis')
Well, eis (
εις) is Greek, not Hebrew, and does not imply the concept of 'looking towards' into a future time frame. I am curious where you had learned this. Please peruse the link to the Liddell Scott Greek Lexicon for
εις -
LINK. I would suggest, "for the purpose of" to provide a more accurate context.
IV. to express RELATION,
towards, in regard to,
V. of an end or limit, to end in..,
2. of Purpose or Object
The purpose of John's baptism was to end in the forgiveness of sins. I am reluctant to conclude that this was inutile.
it did not of itself remit sins. For the blood had not yet been shed.
I see you do conclude that this was inutile. But the baptism of John did indeed remit sins. There is nothing in scripture to even suggest that such a baptism failed or was worthless. Why would God send a voice in the wilderness that lied ??
* After the death and resurrection of Christ: Christ Jesus the risen Lord, said to the disciples on the road to Emmaus, in
Luke 24:46-47, '
Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.'
Uh.... would it be obtuse of me to point out that this verse doesn't even have the word blood in it?
Of course we preach the remission of sins in His name, which means that Jesus taught the true Gospel by which sins are forgiven. Within the corrupted Moses, do you want forgiveness? Offer up goat's blood. Within the Gospel of Jesus? Repent and ask. (That's all. Goats need not apply.)
Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
(Acts 13:38 KJV)
Indeed it was through the man Jesus that the (true) forgiveness of sins was preached. If Jesus came preaching the gospel, then the gospel is what
Jesus preached. And I see nothing whatsoever in the words of Jesus that says HE said his blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins.
(Yes, I know my words are scandalous to many, so I think I should stop here, until a new thread arises to deal with these things. I understand the concept of blood atonement, but all I'm doing here is asking that this be shown using the very words of Jesus, not the opinions of others.)
Kindly,
Rhema
it did not of itself remit sins. For the blood had not yet been shed.
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
(Jeremiah 31:31-32 KJV)
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles: else the new wine doth burst the bottles, and the wine is spilled, and the bottles will be marred: but new wine must be put into new bottles.
(Mark 2:22 KJV)
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both (new wine and new bottles - ed.) are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.
(Luke 5:37-39 KJV)
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
(Matthew 9:13 KJV)
