> Transcripts of Ray's Audio's and More Teachings

WAS CHRIST MADE SIN ? Pt. 1 & 2 . . . Biblestudy Oct/Nov '06

<< < (2/2)

PART 2 - Page 3

Now there is more than one way to skin a cat. One who knows not sin, can not be at the same time, sin. You can not, not know sin and yet be sin, that is a contradiction. The Scriptures tell us that Jesus was in all points tempted, that means to test, to scrutinize, to examine or to prove, yet without sin. The temptation is not sin, temptation is testing.

Heb 4:15  …but One Who has been tried in all respects like us, apart from sin." (Concordant)

He was tested in all respects, tried, tested, examined to see what charter He was, by God. But “apart from sin.”  Do you see that? The testing, the temptation was apart from sin. Coy suggests that it was sin. He says concerning Eve, she had the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes and the pride of life and he said those things were in Christ. No they weren’t, they were not.

“Apart from sin,” here is Green’s Interlinear, “That the One having in all respects, according to our likeness, apart from sin.” (Heb. 4:15) Does anybody know what ‘apart’ means? “Apart,” it says “yet without sin” in the King James. But most translations know that the better word is ‘apart,’ because that involves separation - apart, as without just means not having. 

The word translated without - apart, is the Greek word ‘choris.’ Here is a few places that it is used in Scripture.

John 15:5 (Jesus said) …for without Me you can do nothing.

Does that mean, without Him we can do everything? No, “without” it’s the word ‘choris’- apart.

 Eph 2:12  That at that time you were without Christ…

Now can you ‘be sin’ and yet be without sin, apart from sin, separated from sin?  Come on, this is foolishness. This is total immature spiritual idiocy. You can’t be apart from something and yet be the thing you are apart from. This is nonsense. 

James 2:26  For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

Now lets look at this word ‘choris’ same word - apart from, “tempted like as we are, yet apart from sin.” (Heb. 4:15)

They are trying to say, that the temptation was the sin that He was, that He had the lust of the eyes in Him. Lust? You can not have ‘lust’ unless you are performing it. If you don’t perform lust, then you don’t have lust. Coy tries to say, Christ did have lust in Him, He just didn’t carry it out. What? You say He lusted in His heart and He didn’t actually do it. That’s the definition of sin, that’s the definition of sinning! That’s what Christ says, that if you look at your neighbors wife to fornicate with her, you’ve already fornicated with her. But Coy says, He didn’t carry it out. You don’t have to carry it out to be guilty of sinning, because where does all sin start? In the HEART!

First you get an idea, then it’s like, ’oh I want to try that.’ Then when you actually do it, anybody can see that you are a sinner. Up until then you may have fooled them, only God knows. But when you actually do it, you don’t fool nobody then.

So “For as the body without the spirit is dead.” Do you believe that the body without - separated from the spirit, is still alive? Does anybody believe that? Do you believe that the TV plugged into the wall and you are watching it, do you believe that when you separate the electricity by pulling out the plug, that the picture is still there and you can still watch the TV program? When you separated it and pulled it apart? Come on, it’s the same word. These words are used consistently and properly and so on, when you go back and read, because that is what the Holy Spirit inspired.

Heb 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please Him…

So if you are without faith and you don’t have it and you are separated from it… then you can still please God? No, that is what the word does, it takes it away. If Christ was without sin, then it was taken away from Him, He is separated from sin. He is not sin! This is not hard. There are countless Scriptures, countless, I mean hundreds that contradict the idea that Christ was sin. There is not one Scripture that contradicts that he was a sin offering, okay. 

                                  SIN IN ACT AND SIN IN FACT??

‘Sin in act and sin in fact.’ He said at that conference that sin is missing the mark and is lawlessness. Of course if that is the definition of sin, not sinning, but just sin… sin is lawlessness, sin is missing the mark. Think about that, you can’t even say it in a sentence, without turning the noun - sin, into a verb - sin. 

For example if sin is missing the mark, missing shows action, doesn’t it? Isn’t it something you do? How else do you miss the mark, unless you did something that caused you to miss the mark, right? That’s the definition of sinning. Are you following? That’s the definition of sinning, because if you didn’t miss the mark, you didn’t sin and you can not be sin. So they shot themselves in the foot, by trying to give a definition that contradicts their own teaching.  If sin is missing the mark, then you have to miss the mark in order to have that sin and missing is an action, that makes you a sinner. But he says Christ was sin, but didn’t sin. He was sin in the noun, but not sin in the verb. It’s utter unscriptural foolishness.

They say that we are also sin. He states, ‘that if Jesus Christ is going to conquer, overcome death, then where is Jesus Christ going to have to do that? He’s going to have to do that by being placed in the realm of death, as I like to call it.’ Maybe he likes to call it that, but that is nonsense. Where does the Bible say that Christ lived or was placed in or resided in the realm of death? There is no such Scripture. 

Then he says, ‘Christ was made sin, when He was made of a woman. That He took on human flesh and that’s when He became sin, as we see here in the Scriptures.’ But he doesn’t show it in the Scriptures. Then he references Galatians.

Gal 4:4  But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

He said, ‘there it is.’  Well yea He was made of a woman, but where does it say that’s when He became sin? I missed that part. It’s not in there, it‘s nonsense.

So he gives the definition that sin is missing the mark and sin is lawlessness, but he doesn’t tell us when Jesus Christ was lawless, how He was lawless or when or how He missed the mark. Their minds didn’t go that far. 

Can’t you see that when you start developing an idol of the heart, some pet theory that your going to hang on to, as long as you hang onto that you can’t see pass that idols nose. Your mind can’t go anywhere except that narrow tunnel vision, which is totally blocked by the image of this idol. You can’t see around it or over it or through it. It is what you worship.

So if sin is lawlessness, when was Jesus Christ lawless? What laws did He break? If Christ was sin and sin is lawlessness, what laws did Christ break? If sin is missing the mark, falling short or whatever, when did Christ fall short? How did He fall short? Actually he does give us an example of how Christ fell short, he uses that very term, ‘Jesus Christ fell short.’ Can you believe it, it‘s one of his major proofs. 

Okay, he says sin in act and sin in fact, so the Scriptures say we are under sin (Romans 3:9), we are dead to sin (Rom 6:11) and we are found sinners (Galatians 2:17) and so on. But nowhere does it say we are sin, that’s heresy, that is not Scriptural, that’s is not found anywhere. 

                              SIN OFFERING - TRESPASS OFFERING

When he talks about the offerings, that there were two offerings, one for sin and one for trespass. He says that the sin offering was for the fact that Israel was sin and the trespass offering was for the actual commitment of sins. But like the rest of this lecture it is total heresy. Here are his words he‘s talking about the sin offerings, quote “That sin offering was made for what we are, not what we do, what we are, we have a sin offering for what we are. We have a trespass offering for what we do.” That’s nonsense, did you get that? 

This is what that is saying, that in the Old Testament they have what is called a sin offering for what we are, sin, not sinners, sin. Then there was the trespass offering for what we do, commit sins. Two different offerings, because these two things exist. 1)We are sin, 2) we commit sins. Two different aspects of our relationship with sin, two different offerings for those two different relationships. He says we have the offerings to prove it.
Don’t these guys ever read there Bibles anymore? What unscriptural foolishness. Let’s look at it. So you get the picture right? He says, if you gave a sin offering, it was because you are sin. You didn’t do anything wrong, maybe you went all month and didn’t commit any sins, but because you were sin inside, you give a sin offering. But when you go out and if you hit someone over the head with a rock, you committed a sin and then you offer a trespass offering. Because you actually committed a sin. And he says this is Scriptural.

Lev 4:22  When a ruler has sinned (now this is not the fact, this is the act, he actually sinned), and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty; v. 23  Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned (this is pretty clear), come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish: v. 24  And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering.

What kind of offering, a trespass? Because this is a sin that he actually committed, it tells us four times in the verse, that he actually committed sin. But it is a SIN OFFERING. So much for that heresy.

Lev 4:28  Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. V. 29  And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering...

What happed to the trespass offering? By what he says this is supposed to be a trespass offering, when you commit a sin, because the trespass offering is for the actual sin and the sin offering is for what you are. But no, we just read a sin offering is for committing the sin.

Lev 4:34  And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering… v. 35 …and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed,

What happened to the ‘sin in fact?’ Where is this sin offering for the sin in fact, but not the sin in act? 

This is a important study I have done and all of those dissidents are going to get this. They will get all of this stuff contradicting not just their premise, not just one paragraph, not just one page, but every single word of this dirty religion. They will read it and you know what effect it will have on them? Zero. You’ve got it, none what so ever. They will say, ‘well I think he lies, he didn’t quote Coy right.’ I mean come on.
Here is one more Scripture.

Lev 5:6  And he shall bring his trespass offering…

Now we are getting down to it, this is where you are supposed to commit a sin, this has nothing to do with the sin offering, it’s when you commit a sin and it has got to be as he said, a trespass offering and not a sin offering right? Wrong pale face. 

Continue v. 6 …his trespass offering unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a kid of the goats for (for what? a trespass offering, right? Nope…) a sin offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for him concerning his sin.

You bring the trespass offering, for a sin offering, that's what it is. The trespass offering is a sin offering. It’s in your Bible, it’s in my Bible. It’s in verse 7...

Lev 5:7  And if he be not able to bring a lamb, then he shall bring for his trespass (bring what, a trespass offering? No), which he hath committed (this is an ‘act’ now), two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD; one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering.

It’s just nonsense, yet this is one of his major points. This is his poof that you can ‘be sin,’ without sinning, because there was an offering especially for just being sin and not committing a sin, it was called the sin offering. No!

We just read time and time and time again, in the same chapter, that when you committed a sin, you offered the sin offering. What he has is wrong, it’s just bogus nonsense. 

Then he has one called ‘the propensity to sin.’ Because it is kind of in humanity to sin and this is one of his proofs that Christ was sin, because He was a human.

                            “COME SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD”

One more thing I want to touch upon, not because I’m out of material, I have lots more, but I’m out of time.
This is what he calls his biggy, this is the big proof. This is the one where he says Christ does come short, which he is going to now show is the definition of sin. 

Rom 3:23  For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

So he says this is the definition of sin, coming short of the glory of God. If you come short of the glory of God, you are sin. Now the question is, did Christ come short of the glory of God? Because if He did, then He’s sin. 

He goes over to John 17 and he says he proves that Christ came short of the glory of God.

John 17:5  And now, O Father, glorify thou Me with Your own self with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

Coy says that Christ is saying here that I (Christ) fall short of the glory of God, that's why He prayed to the Father to give it to Him. What is his definition of falling short of the glory of God? Sin. All have sinned and how have they sinned, by falling short of the glory of God.

Now we are a little past sand pile here. Because here is where the deceitfulness of demons will overpower you, if you don’t have the insight to see through this foolishness. What do you say to that? Does he now have one valid point.

“For all have sinned, and come short (some translations have 'are wanting') of the glory of God;” (Rom. 3:23)  and Jesus Christ he says, fell short of the glory of God and that proves He was sin. I won’t say that he says that He is a sinner, but by the examples of what sin is, he does show that He was a sinner. 

I have gone through the definition of sin from dictionaries, there is no such thing that you can be guilty of sin and not commit sin, there is no such thing. You can not be sin and yet not sin. Not only is it a Scriptural and a literal impossibility, it’s a grammatical impossibility. 

It’s like saying if you were sick, a sick and dying person, but there is nothing wrong with you. No that doesn’t go together. If you are sick there IS something wrong with you. But he says, no there is nothing wrong with you - Christ never sinned, but He is sin. That is nonsense.

But what about this, 'falling short'? He says what Christ is saying there, is I’m falling short of the glory of God.  Right there He is asking God to give Him back the glory that He had before, because now He is falling short. 

Coy tells us what glory is and if therefore you don’t have this, you obviously like Christ ‘fall short.’ He states, (quoting) “to my understanding glorify means to return to the Spirit that He was. To be glorified is to enter into our spirit bodies.” 

Note that he said “to my understanding,” but of course the man has no understanding. I’m sure to his understanding he believes such foolishness, it’s just not scriptural that’s all. I mean if that be true, if when you are given a spirit body then you are glorified and you are what the definition of glorified means; 1) How do we square that with the fact that we are going to judge angels for their sins? They have spirit bodies, therefore they are not falling short of the glory of God? They are not falling short of the glory of God, but they have to be judged for their sins? Come on, do you know contradiction when you hear it? 2) Not only the angels, but what are we going to do with Satan? Satan is spirit. So he is the glorification of God, because he has a spirit body? Do you not see the foolishness of this stuff? It’s not only incomprehensible, it’s reprehensible.

Jesus Christ was not saying, ‘Father I’ve fallen so short of Your glory, please give Me a little glory. Give Me the glory I used to have, I’ve fallen so short, you must hate Me.’ No. He prayed that He would be returned to the position of glory and honor that He had with the Father before the world began. Now that is a specific, particular aspect of glory that He had that He’s asking for back. That is not a statement that Christ has fallen short of the glory of God. That is just damnable unscriptural conjecture that has no ground in fact whatsoever.  He is not admitting failure. That’s what He gave up you see.

Php 2:7  But made (my margin says ‘emptied’) Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

That word “made” is a whole lot more than just the simple little word “made.” He emptied Himself from what He was, this splendorous being with God the Father, down to and partook of the likeness of our sinful flesh. “The likeness” not the same as, but the likeness of what we are. It nowhere says, therefore He had NO glory. Glory does not mean to have a spirit body. 

I mean these guys have dictionaries and the Bible itself, which explains itself, because this word glory or glorified is used many times, they’ve got E-Sword and Strong’s Concordance, why don’t they look at it? Because nowhere is the definition of glory to be given a spiritual body, that is just nonsense. Christ didn’t become un-glorified or de-glorified or void of all glory, because He took on a body. But they say, ‘oh yeah, He became sin and there is no glory in sin.’ 

Just previous to this in his lecture he read a Scripture and you will see what I’m talking about. When you get these idols of the heart you get such tunnel vision that all you see in front of your eyes is the idol, you can’t see anything else. Coy read this very Scripture, he said it with his own mouth just a few minutes before he is saying this. Here is where he is trying to use these Scriptures to show that this is when He became sin. Look what it says here, this is the chapter he uses.

Heb 2:6  But one in a certain place testified, saying, what is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that You visit him?

He read this next Scripture and the words never entered his mind.

Heb 2:7  You made Him a little lower than the angels (he talked about that); You crowned Him with glory and honor, and did set Him over the works of Your hands: v. 8  You hast put all things in subjection under His feet. For in that He put all in subjection under Him, He left nothing that is not put under Him. But now we see not yet all things put under Him.

Did you notice what I just read, did you see what I just read over? “crowned Him with GLORY and HONOR”  This was when He was made a man. When He was brought down to be a sacrifice for sin, He was crowned with “GLORY and HONOR.” 

So all you need is a few truths of God and you can just tear this blasphemous nonsense to shreds with the Scriptures.



[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version