John The Baptist

[ether-ore]

He was not considered divine while alive.
Sure about that? Scholars generally believe Jesus was a follower or disciple of John
To be baptized is to be a student.

I just wanted to comment that John announced (at least twice) his subordination to Jesus Christ rather than Christ ever being subordinated to him as student or anything else. The only thing that Christ ever came to the Baptist for was baptism because John had that authority. Going to someone in authority for some reason doesn't make you their student. You go because you can't do it yourself or by yourself. Being baptized requires someone in authority to perform the function since an individual cannot baptize themselves.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Is all purely symbolic and has no real meaning imho .
Wash away sins come on I mean always found it simpler myself just to accept responsibility .

 

[ether-ore]

Is all purely symbolic and has no real meaning imho .
Wash away sins come on I mean always found it simpler myself just to accept responsibility .

It absolutely is symbolic, but it is also one's signature to the covenant that is being made. You are making a covenant (signing a contract) by this act. The covenant is that Christ promises to saves us on condition of our repentance and the keeping of His commandments to the end of our lives.

 

[outhouse]

I just wanted to comment that John announced (at least twice) his subordination to Jesus Christ rather than Christ ever being subordinated to him as student or anything else.

We don't have a clue what John said. We do however know the unknown authors were far removed and had artistic freedom to write what we needed for their communities beliefs.

In other words, people far removed from the baptism created the pseudo history surrounding the event.

you cannot post credible sources because your proposition is one of faith and or apologetics with no credibility bud.


Im sorry its just the way it is.

Unlike the gospels, Josephus does not relate John and Jesus, and does not state that John's baptisms were for the remission of sins.

the apostle Peter refers to how the ministry of Jesus followed "the baptism which John preached".


Scholars generally believe Jesus was a follower or disciple of John

and several New Testament accounts report that some of Jesus' early followers had previously been followers of John.


There is no debate here

 

[outhouse]

John had that authority

Let me tell you what John had. You follow more of Johns teachings then that of Jesus by all plausibility.

John was so big, Josephus knew a little about him and recorded his details, he wrote almost nothing of Jesus because he was not near as famous as John. Jesus traveled so he would not end up being murdered like his teacher.


Jesus teaching came from his learning from John, and what John had taught him. So Jesus was basically telling people much of what he had learned.

When these early communities picked up information attributed to Jesus, much of it were typical Aramaic Galilean teachings ALL common to Judaism with a apocalyptic basis.


They did not come out of a vacuum, and they all have human origins.

 

[Ken Brown]

What I understand is this: Baptism did not originate with John... John the Baptist was already baptizing in the Jordan River before Jesus came to him and many Jews came to him to be baptized. They understood the ordinance and its necessity. John was not teaching some new doctrine that the Jews did not understand. They came to John because they recognized him as a prophet with authority to baptize.
All these things came to and through the House of Israel because it was to them that the original prophesies were given. Remember, "baptism" is a Greek word, not a Hebrew one. To the Jews, before New Testament times, it was simply referred to as the ordinance of "washing". Here are some references that I believe refer to these "washings":
Isaiah 48:1: "Hear ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah, which swear by the name of the Lord, and make mention of the God of Israel..."
The waters of Judah mentioned here has reference to the fact that the Jews knew that the Messiah was to come through the tribe of Judah, but rather than use the phrase, "waters of the Messiah" (in who's name they must be washed) waters of Judah was used instead to protect the sacred name. Notice as well, Isaiah says "and". One has to be called by the name of Israel "and" be baptized (to use the Greek term). I happen to believe that I am adopted into the House of Israel. Specifically into the tribe of Ephraim the son of Joseph. I believe this is what the symbology of Joseph's coat of many colors had reference to; that all who are washed in the name of the Messiah would be counted as sons of Abraham (through Joseph) to whom it was said that through him would "all" the kindreds of the earth be blessed. Joseph's coat of many colors = all races.
In I Kings 7:23-26 we have this:
23 ¶And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
24 And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.
25 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea was set above upon them, and all their hinder parts were inward.
26 And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.
Solomon was not doing anything but what the Lord or the law commanded him to do. Do you suppose this vessel (molten out of brass) had any other purpose than the ordinance of washing? Consider the two thousand baths. Would not that volume of water suggest immersion.
The references are scarce and maybe a bit vague, but I believe they are there. Besides, being LDS, I believe revelation given through Joseph Smith clarifies this issue beyond doubt.

Shalom ether-ore, thank you for responding and again, I appreciate the fact that you and Joseph Smith recognizes that the Torah commands the Moshiach be washed/baptized and when He did, He fulfilled that righteous command that was written by Moshe. My question would be to you and Joseph Smith (since he is dead, to maybe check his writings), has any consideration been given to The Foundation of the Torah, as to where it is commanded that He be washed/baptized? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

It absolutely is symbolic, but it is also one's signature to the covenant that is being made. You are making a covenant (signing a contract) by this act. The covenant is that Christ promises to saves us on condition of our repentance and the keeping of His commandments to the end of our lives.

Think i was about 7 months old when i was christened and baptized

 

[ether-ore]

We don't have a clue what John said. We do however know the unknown authors were far removed and had artistic freedom to write what we needed for their communities beliefs.

In other words, people far removed from the baptism created the pseudo history surrounding the event.

you cannot post credible sources because your proposition is one of faith and or apologetics with no credibility bud.

Im sorry its just the way it is.

Unlike the gospels, Josephus does not relate John and Jesus, and does not state that John's baptisms were for the remission of sins.

the apostle Peter refers to how the ministry of Jesus followed "the baptism which John preached".

Scholars generally believe Jesus was a follower or disciple of John

and several New Testament accounts report that some of Jesus' early followers had previously been followers of John.

There is no debate here

I take it then that you do not consider the Bible as authentic and prefer Josephus' writings over it. That is your choice. I happen to believe the Biblical record and here is some of what it says:
John 1:15: "John bare witness of him, [Jesus Christ] and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. (In this passage, John acknowledges Christ's supremacy).
John 1:27: "He it is, [Jesus Christ] who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. (Same confession)
Matthew 3:14: "But John forbad him, [Jesus Christ] saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" (Here again, John is saying the he needs the Christ and is subordinate to Him).

What is your reference to Peter? Nevertheless, baptism is integral to the gospel of Jesus Christ. It symbolizes the death and burial of Christ and is the seal on the commitment to the gospel covenant. I do know that many of the followers of John left him and went and followed Jesus; as it says in:
John 3:26-30:
26 And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.
27 John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.
28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.
29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.
30 He must increase, but I must decrease. (Christ is the bridegroom and John is the friend that went before Him)

 

[ether-ore]

Shalom ether-ore, thank you for responding and again, I appreciate the fact that you and Joseph Smith recognizes that the Torah commands the Moshiach be washed/baptized and when He did, He fulfilled that righteous command that was written by Moshe. My question would be to you and Joseph Smith (since he is dead, to maybe check his writings), has any consideration been given to The Foundation of the Torah, as to where it is commanded that He be washed/baptized? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Being limited in your question to the Torah, I have no more answer for you than what I already gave. Other writings and revelations give me to understand that baptism is and always has been a requirement. The Pearl of Great Price, revealed through Joseph Smith, says that Adam was baptized.

 

[Ken Brown]

Being limited in your question to the Torah, I have no more answer for you than what I already gave. Other writings and revelations give me to understand that baptism is and always has been a requirement. The Pearl of Great Price, revealed through Joseph Smith, says that Adam was baptized.

Shalom ether-ore, in The Foundation of The Torah (The Chukah of the Parah Adumah/The Ordinance of the Red Heifer) baptism for or because of the dead was required for anyone who became defile through that contact (think along with what Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 15:29 concerning baptism for or account of the dead). So all who were defiled or unclean because of the dead, had to wash/be baptized, but there was One who was CLEAN, One who would Sprinkle the Ashes/Dead Body, that had Living Water/Eternal Life added to the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer/Messiah) on the THIRD day, as He came forth out of the Vessel/Tomb (Numbers 19:17-19). This Clean One had to also wash/baptize His Garments that was on His Body, and this was accomplished initially with John. It was RIGHTEOUSNESS for Him to accomplish THIS requirement or command of the Torah, and when He told John about fulfilling this RIGHTEOUSNESS (Numbers 19:21), John consented. It's rather simple and all falls into place when it is opened up to one's vision. I'm not certain, but I think Joseph Smith was just like the rest of traditional christianity, in that this was hidden from him. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

 

[arthra]

What sins was John the baptist washing away from God? Why does God need to be baptised to enter the Kingdom of heaven?

Others have responded to this issue.. Jesus was baptized by John as a fulfillment of expectations.. John was "Elijah", that is he was fulfilling the role of Elijah and the prophesy indicated

"Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes."

He prepared the way for the Lord.

"Reflect, also, that baptism in the days of John the Baptist was used to awaken and admonish the people to repent from all sin, and to watch for the appearance of the Kingdom of Christ."

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 94)

When Jesus was baptized you'll recall the Holy Spirit in the similitude of a dove descended on Him.

"As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove"

The early disciples of Jesus had also been following John.

 

[ether-ore]

Shalom ether-ore, in The Foundation of The Torah (The Chukah of the Parah Adumah/The Ordinance of the Red Heifer) baptism for or because of the dead was required for anyone who became defile through that contact (think along with what Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 15:29 concerning baptism for or account of the dead). So all who were defiled or unclean because of the dead, had to wash/be baptized, but there was One who was CLEAN, One who would Sprinkle the Ashes/Dead Body, that had Living Water/Eternal Life added to the Parah Adumah (Red Heifer/Messiah) on the THIRD day, as He came forth out of the Vessel/Tomb (Numbers 19:17-19). This Clean One had to also wash/baptize His Garments that was on His Body, and this was accomplished initially with John. It was RIGHTEOUSNESS for Him to accomplish THIS requirement or command of the Torah, and when He told John about fulfilling this RIGHTEOUSNESS (Numbers 19:21), John consented. It's rather simple and all falls into place when it is opened up to one's vision. I'm not certain, but I think Joseph Smith was just like the rest of traditional christianity, in that this was hidden from him. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

Again, if one restricts one's perspective to the Torah, what you say may appear to have some credibility. However, from a Christian perspective and with other references to draw upon, baptism is about making and keeping a covenant made with Jesus Christ for the cleansing of one's personal sins. Baptism for the dead (as opposed to baptism because of contamination from the dead) is necessary because baptism is a requirement for everyone for admission into the Kingdom of Heaven. So, I guess we stand in disagreement.

 

[Ken Brown]

Again, if one restricts one's perspective to the Torah, what you say may appear to have some credibility. However, from a Christian perspective and with other references to draw upon, baptism is about making and keeping a covenant made with Jesus Christ for the cleansing of one's personal sins. Baptism for the dead (as opposed to baptism because of contamination from the dead) is necessary because baptism is a requirement for everyone for admission into the Kingdom of Heaven. So, I guess we stand in disagreement.

Shalom ether-ore, as far as disagreement, it was very refreshing to hear that you felt the Moshiach was baptized to fulfill a command, and all I did was explain that command, as RIGHTEOUSNESS is ALL of HaShem's commandments (Psalms 119:172). Thus, the Clean Man who was required to Sprinkle the Gospel/Ashes of the Red Heifer (the suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection of Moshiach, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), was fulfilling the RIGHTEOUS Command of the Torah from Numbers 19:21.

I do have a question though, what do you mean, "baptism is about making and keeping a covenant made with Jesus Christ for the cleansing of one's personal sins?" Can you elaborate on that a little more, especially about HOW one's personal sins are cleansed? What is it that "cleanses" your "personal sins?" Here again, The Foundation of The Torah, the Ordinance of the Torah-The Ritual of the Red Heifer, was all about SEPARATING a sinner FROM their sin (a water of separation, a purification for sin - Numbers 19:9) Is that how you are looking at the cleansing that is happening with your "personal sins," or do you view it like traditional christianity? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[ether-ore]

Shalom ether-ore, as far as disagreement, it was very refreshing to hear that you felt the Moshiach was baptized to fulfill a command, and all I did was explain that command, as RIGHTEOUSNESS is ALL of HaShem's commandments (Psalms 119:172). Thus, the Clean Man who was required to Sprinkle the Gospel/Ashes of the Red Heifer (the suffering, death, burial, and third day resurrection of Moshiach, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), was fulfilling the RIGHTEOUS Command of the Torah from Numbers 19:21.

I do have a question though, what do you mean, "baptism is about making and keeping a covenant made with Jesus Christ for the cleansing of one's personal sins?" Can you elaborate on that a little more, especially about HOW one's personal sins are cleansed? What is it that "cleanses" your "personal sins?" Here again, The Foundation of The Torah, the Ordinance of the Torah-The Ritual of the Red Heifer, was all about SEPARATING a sinner FROM their sin (a water of separation, a purification for sin - Numbers 19:9) Is that how you are looking at the cleansing that is happening with your "personal sins," or do you view it like traditional christianity? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

Our terminology is a little bit different. "Separating" a sin from the sinner sounds appropriate. I usually use the term or rather, the phrase: " saved from sin" to differentiate it from saving a sinner being "in their sin", which is not possible. It is not possible to save someone "in their sins" because "in" means they have not repented of their sins and are still committing them.

The covenant of baptism is a two way agreement between Christ and the sinner. Christ promises to save the sinner "from" their sins (the first part of the agreement)... "on condition" that the sinner agrees to repent of past sins, not to commit them again and a promise to keep God's commandments from that time forward, until the end of his life (which is the second part of the agreement).

The reasoning behind the covenant has to do with God's eternal laws. The sinner has broken those eternal laws. Because the law was broken, justice demands that a penalty be paid. The penalty is that the sinner may never (for eternity) be permitted back into the presence of God the Father; because no "unclean" thing can enter the Kingdom of God. A sinner is considered unclean and "nothing" the sinner can do can make them clean enough to enter the presence of God. Jesus Christ, because He is the Son of God, sacrificed Himself as a sin offering to the Father for the sins of those who will repent. Christ's sacrifice which is intended to cleans the sinner of his sins cannot be applied to any except those who repent and make the covenant of baptism.

All of the animal sacrifices in the Torah and the Old Testament were intended as "types" or examples of the last and great sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Just as Moses held up the serpent in the wilderness, that whosoever would look on it would be healed; whosoever will look on Jesus Christ and repent and be baptized, would be healed of their sins, cleansed and be permitted back into the presence of the Father.

 

[Ken Brown]

Our terminology is a little bit different. "Separating" a sin from the sinner sounds appropriate. I usually use the term or rather, the phrase: " saved from sin" to differentiate it from saving a sinner being "in their sin", which is not possible. It is not possible to save someone "in their sins" because "in" means they have not repented of their sins and are still committing them.

The covenant of baptism is a two way agreement between Christ and the sinner. Christ promises to save the sinner "from" their sins (the first part of the agreement)... "on condition" that the sinner agrees to repent of past sins, not to commit them again and a promise to keep God's commandments from that time forward, until the end of his life (which is the second part of the agreement).

The reasoning behind the covenant has to do with God's eternal laws. The sinner has broken those eternal laws. Because the law was broken, justice demands that a penalty be paid. The penalty is that the sinner may never (for eternity) be permitted back into the presence of God the Father; because no "unclean" thing can enter the Kingdom of God. A sinner is considered unclean and "nothing" the sinner can do can make them clean enough to enter the presence of God. Jesus Christ, because He is the Son of God, sacrificed Himself as a sin offering to the Father for the sins of those who will repent. Christ's sacrifice which is intended to cleans the sinner of his sins cannot be applied to any except those who repent and make the covenant of baptism.

All of the animal sacrifices in the Torah and the Old Testament were intended as "types" or examples of the last and great sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Just as Moses held up the serpent in the wilderness, that whosoever would look on it would be healed; whosoever will look on Jesus Christ and repent and be baptized, would be healed of their sins, cleansed and be permitted back into the presence of the Father.

Shalom ether-ore, so in essence, you believe your cleansing mainly deals with paying the penalty for your sins, and it is conditional (that you repent and stop sinning)? More or less, that your "saviour" took your place on the cross and satisfied the penalty of breaking commandments, by dying in your stead? Your belief is really not that much different from traditional christianity (with the exception of the condition that you stop sinning-which I like very much). How do you deal with the fact that the Moshiach died ACCORDING to the Scriptures, and do not the Scriptures state the soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20), and that sons should not be put to death "for" the sins of the fathers, neither the fathers for the sons (Deuteronomy 24:16, 2 Chronicles 25:4, Jeremiah 31:29-30, Ezekiel 18:4)? Didn't the Moshiach call Himself, "The Son of Man?" Why would you think that His purpose was to take your place, dying in your stead, paying the penalty of your sin, IF He is the Son of Man, and He died According to the Scriptures? Didn't He die to separate you or free you from all your iniquities, turning you from them (The Acts of the Apostles 3:26)? There may be a better way to look upon His suffering, death, and resurrection than looking at it substitutionally. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew

P.S. Are you familiar with the "Free Gift of Righteousness" we receive through the Sacrifice of Moshiach?

 

[ether-ore]

How do you deal with the fact that the Moshiach died ACCORDING to the Scriptures, and (Deuteronomy 24:16, 2 Chronicles 25:4, Jeremiah 31:29-30, Ezekiel 18:4)?

I'm a bit confused about where you arfe coming from. Are you a Messianic Jew? Do I understand correctly that the name "Moshiach" means "the anointed one", and that has reference to the Messiah? The word "Messiah" is Hebrew meaning the same thing as the Greek word "Christ". Both words mean "the anointed one" or He who was anointed and foreordained of God the Father to be the Savior of the world. I therefore "deal with the fact" by accepting it through repentance and baptism.

... do not the Scriptures state the soul who sins shall die (Ezekiel 18:20), and that sons should not be put to death "for" the sins of the fathers, neither the fathers for the sons

The soul who sins does die. We all die. The wages of sin is death. Being mortal, we die. It is the natural result of sin, but we do not die [spiritually] because of the sins of a parent. We are not punished for Adam's transgressions. We have to be careful here as to what kind of death we are talking about. There are two deaths; one physical and one spiritual.
When Christ atoned for us, He atoned for two things; death and hell. The word "death" refers to physical death or the separation of the spirit from the body. "Hell" refers to the spiritual death; sometimes referred to as the death of the soul which means permanent separation from the body of Christ; His kingdom... or in other words... cut off from among the people.

Didn't the Moshiach call Himself, "The Son of Man?" /QUOTE]
If we are talking about the same thing; that "Moshiach" = "Messiah" = "Christ"... then yes. " The Son of Man" refers to God the Father or " Man of Holiness"

Why would you think that His purpose was to take your place, dying in your stead, paying the penalty of your sin,

Why? Because He loved us. And because only He, as the only sinless and perfect being, could pay the penalty. We as sinners are not capable of paying that debt because we are not perfect. Even if we repent, there still exists the flaw that we committed a sin in the first place. God has said that no unclean thing can enter into His kingdom. If we have a flaw to any degree, we are unclean. However if we repent, and become one with Jesus Christ, then we can be considered "perfected in Him" and thereby be allowed back into God's kingdom.

IF He is the Son of Man, and He died According to the Scriptures? Didn't He die to separate you or free you from all your iniquities, turning you from them (The Acts of the Apostles 3:26)?

Yes... and the turning from them is repentance.

There may be a better way to look upon His suffering, death, and resurrection than looking at it substitutionally.

What would that be?

Are you familiar with the "Free Gift of Righteousness" we receive through the Sacrifice of Moshiach?

What do you interpret that to mean? My answer is based on why we are here in mortality in the first place. We are here in mortality to learn how to control these physical bodies and to subdue carnal desires and appetites to the will of God. We learn nothing... we have accomplished nothing if God makes us righteous through no effort of our own. If we do not exert ourselves in an effort to do the will of God, then there was no point in our being here in the first place. We are children and as such, we are to be taught by God, but being taught is not a passive endeavor on our part.

 

[Ken Brown]

I'm a bit confused about where you arfe coming from. Are you a Messianic Jew? Do I understand correctly that the name "Moshiach" means "the anointed one", and that has reference to the Messiah? The word "Messiah" is Hebrew meaning the same thing as the Greek word "Christ". Both words mean "the anointed one" or He who was anointed and foreordained of God the Father to be the Savior of the world. I therefore "deal with the fact" by accepting it through repentance and baptism.

The soul who sins does die. We all die. The wages of sin is death. Being mortal, we die. It is the natural result of sin, but we do not die [spiritually] because of the sins of a parent. We are not punished for Adam's transgressions. We have to be careful here as to what kind of death we are talking about. There are two deaths; one physical and one spiritual.
When Christ atoned for us, He atoned for two things; death and hell. The word "death" refers to physical death or the separation of the spirit from the body. "Hell" refers to the spiritual death; sometimes referred to as the death of the soul which means permanent separation from the body of Christ; His kingdom... or in other words... cut off from among the people.

Shalom ether-ore, thank you for responding as I know this is not a simple issue. First, no, I am not a Messianic Jew, and yes, you are understand the meaning of Moshiach correctly.

Concerning the belief that the Moshiach died as a "satisfaction" to take away the "penalty" or "wage" of sin, which is death, is what I would like to address with you. The Apostle Paul spoke of how everyone from Adam to the giving of the Torah was dying BECAUSE of Adam's offense (transgression). Paul explains that everyone was sinning, but they were dying for or because of Adam's offense, because where there is no Torah, sin is not imputed (Romans 5:13). That changed with the giving of the Torah, now sinners could die for their OWN sin (Numbers 27:3), and not Adam's transgression. Paul saw how the giving of the Torah increased Adam's offense (Romans 5:20) to where many were made sinners/transgressors by or though their own actions of breaking a command as did Adam. So in reality, the Torah corrected the unjust "gift" that Adam gave to mankind, now sinners could die for their own sin, instead of his. But here is where it gets interesting. When Adam's offense abounds (is increased) Grace increases all the more (again Romans 5:20). Tell me ether-ore, what do you think Paul meant here? Do you think that he was looking at an innocent, righteous, and sinless one taking the place of sinners, and receiving the sinners just punishment? Before you answer, please consider these verses: Exodus 23:7, Genesis 18:25, Deuteronomy 25:1, and Proverbs 17:15. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[Ken Brown]

I'm a bit confused about where you arfe coming from. Are you a Messianic Jew? Do I understand correctly that the name "Moshiach" means "the anointed one", and that has reference to the Messiah? The word "Messiah" is Hebrew meaning the same thing as the Greek word "Christ". Both words mean "the anointed one" or He who was anointed and foreordained of God the Father to be the Savior of the world. I therefore "deal with the fact" by accepting it through repentance and baptism.

The soul who sins does die. We all die. The wages of sin is death. Being mortal, we die. It is the natural result of sin, but we do not die [spiritually] because of the sins of a parent. We are not punished for Adam's transgressions. We have to be careful here as to what kind of death we are talking about. There are two deaths; one physical and one spiritual.
When Christ atoned for us, He atoned for two things; death and hell. The word "death" refers to physical death or the separation of the spirit from the body. "Hell" refers to the spiritual death; sometimes referred to as the death of the soul which means permanent separation from the body of Christ; His kingdom... or in other words... cut off from among the people.

Shalom ether-ore, I'm sorry, I didn't see your full response, but I do not have time to respond right now. Maybe later this evening or in the morning. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

 

[ether-ore]

Shalom ether-ore, thank you for responding as I know this is not a simple issue. First, no, I am not a Messianic Jew, and yes, you are understand the meaning of Moshiach correctly.

Concerning the belief that the Moshiach died as a "satisfaction" to take away the "penalty" or "wage" of sin, which is death, is what I would like to address with you. The Apostle Paul spoke of how everyone from Adam to the giving of the Torah was dying BECAUSE of Adam's offense (transgression). Paul explains that everyone was sinning, but they were dying for or because of Adam's offense, because where there is no Torah, sin is not imputed (Romans 5:13). That changed with the giving of the Torah, now sinners could die for their OWN sin (Numbers 27:3), and not Adam's transgression. Paul saw how the giving of the Torah increased Adam's offense (Romans 5:20) to where many were made sinners/transgressors by or though their own actions of breaking a command as did Adam. So in reality, the Torah corrected the unjust "gift" that Adam gave to mankind, now sinners could die for their own sin, instead of his. But here is where it gets interesting. When Adam's offense abounds (is increased) Grace increases all the more (again Romans 5:20). Tell me ether-ore, what do you think Paul meant here? Do you think that he was looking at an innocent, righteous, and sinless one taking the place of sinners, and receiving the sinners just punishment? Before you answer, please consider these verses: Exodus 23:7, Genesis 18:25, Deuteronomy 25:1, and Proverbs 17:15. Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.

OK, the reason I asked is that I am trying to understand where you are coming from. It seems a little inconsistent to me for you to quote from the New Testament in support of the notion that the Torah; or rather adherence to the Torah is all that is required of someone. For another thing when you quoted Paul in Romans; Paul said "law" and you seem to be equating the word "law" with the Torah. The five books of Moses are a not only a restoration of earlier scripture dating back to Adam, but Genesis is an abridgement of those records. Adam had the "law". Cain had the law and broke it. God killed all those people in the flood because they had broken His laws. You are attempting to make it sound like the law was not had until Moses. That is not the case. It was just restored through Moses. Nevertheless, obedience to law does not save because all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God. What saves is Jesus Christ after all we can do. But again, we must repent and be baptized because God has commanded it.
What I believe is that because Adam sinned and became mortal he died a physical death. Nevertheless, he repented and God forgave Adam his sin. Because we were born into mortality, we will die as well. During our mortal sojourn, we will make mistakes and commit sin for which we must repent as well. We are not punished for Adams sins even though we die because we are mortal. But... Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
Corinthians 15:22 is my response to your interpretation of Romans 5:20.

 

[Ken Brown]

OK, the reason I asked is that I am trying to understand where you are coming from. It seems a little inconsistent to me for you to quote from the New Testament in support of the notion that the Torah; or rather adherence to the Torah is all that is required of someone. For another thing when you quoted Paul in Romans; Paul said "law" and you seem to be equating the word "law" with the Torah. The five books of Moses are a not only a restoration of earlier scripture dating back to Adam, but Genesis is an abridgement of those records. Adam had the "law". Cain had the law and broke it. God killed all those people in the flood because they had broken His laws. You are attempting to make it sound like the law was not had until Moses. That is not the case. It was just restored through Moses. Nevertheless, obedience to law does not save because all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God. What saves is Jesus Christ after all we can do. But again, we must repent and be baptized because God has commanded it.
What I believe is that because Adam sinned and became mortal he died a physical death. Nevertheless, he repented and God forgave Adam his sin. Because we were born into mortality, we will die as well. During our mortal sojourn, we will make mistakes and commit sin for which we must repent as well. We are not punished for Adams sins even though we die because we are mortal. But... Corinthians 15:22: "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive."
Corinthians 15:22 is my response to your interpretation of Romans 5:20.

Shalom ether-ore, thank you again for the response. There is something that is very important to understand, and if one misunderstands it, they will more than likely be in error concerning their beliefs. It involves the concept that the CARNAL man was FIRST, and not the SPIRITUAL MAN. Paul explained that Adam became a living soul, and he was WEAK, DISHONORABLE, MORTAL, and CORRUPTIBLE, and the SPIRITUAL MAN is just the opposite, and in HaShem's PLAN, the Spiritual Man was not first, rather the CARNAL man was (1 Corinthians 15:45-46).

Now, I agree with your statement, "We are here in mortality to learn how to control these physical bodies and to subdue carnal desires and appetites to the will of God." That is a correct belief as far as I am concerned. Elohim PLANNED this CARNAL existence to teach us concerning the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and it is His expressed desire that ALL come to a Knowledge of the Truth, choosing the Good and abstaining from the Evil. So my question, why does it take someone killing themselves, or letting someone else kill them to make this plan work? Blessings in The Name, ImAHebrew.