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

[Kat]

Bible study Oct/Nov 2006
http://bible-truths.com/audio/WS_10001.WMA
http://bible-truths.com/audio/ChristSinII.wma
http://bible-truths.com/audio/ChristSinII.mp3

PART 1

                                                                       WAS CHRIST MADE SIN ?

You only understand these things if you have the Spirit of God. Because of those who don't obviously understand them and that's why I'm giving this talk. I going to deal with the subject today that people without the Spirit of God do not understand, can not understand, and will not understand. I'm going to give you the Scriptural facts today, so that if the Spirit of God is working with you, you will understand it, okay. 

So I heard this message of Coy Brock's from the internet, his talk was entitled 'How Christ Was Made Sin.' But I'm not going to deal with how Christ was made sin, because that very title alone is total unscriptural heresy and blasphemy. The title of my talk is 'Was Christ Made Sin?' I can emphatically tell you, NO He was not! 

They will say, 'well but don't we have a Scripture that says He was?' As a matter of fact we don't, we have a Bible verse in the King James Bible and in many other modern Bibles that says "Christ was made sin." That is not an accurate translation of the Scripture. All be it you will find those words in the Greek manuscript. They will say, 'well then how can it not be an accurate translation, if those are the words that are found?' It's because there is more understanding that one needs to have to translate the Scripture, than to just look at a word and say what does the word, by itself mean. 

People are dumb founded when they learn how much is involves in translating from one language to another. There are people as naive as I was when I was 15 or 20 years old. They believe that you can take any language and whatever it says in that language, you can take each word and what does that word mean in the English language, then you put that English word there. Then you take the second word... maybe it's Chinese or maybe it's Russian or Hebrew or maybe it's Greek. But then you take the second word and what does it mean, in English how do you define that word, and so let's put the English equivalent of that definition next. Then let's take the next word. Therefore you have a word for word, perfect translation of whatever language you are trying to translate. Correct? Wrong paleface, not even close. 

I'll say this again and I've said it many times, there is no such thing as a word for word translation of one language into another language. It doesn't exist.


                                                                   VALLEY OF HINNOM - GEHENNA

Now I'm doing a series on 'hell,' and I am now working on Gehenna and I'm going to make a big deal over this, because it is a big deal. I'm sure these people that side with Coy Brock, would agree with me about what I have to say about Gehenna. Jesus Christ says in Matt. 5.

Mat 5:22  ...But whoever says, "You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.

"Hell fire"? But my Bible has a little superior (1) by the word hell and when you look in the margin it says "Gehenna." So it's telling me that word translated "hell" is Gehenna. It's actually a compound word and if you look it up in Strong's Concordance or any Bible dictionary or any reference on this earth, they will tell you that Gehenna means Ge-Hinnom.  Ge- means rift - gorge - valley, it's translated valley consistently in the King James Bible Ge-valley. What is Hinnom? The Jebusites were among the Canaanites, who lived in the Palestine area, so this man was Hinnom. Most of the time it is translated son of Hinnom. Ge-ben-hinnom, Ben-Hur, you have heard of the movie Ben-Hur, it means son, son of Hur - Ben Hur. 

So the word is "shall be in danger of Gehenna fire." But that's Greek. You might say, 'oh yea, but it's always translated Gehenna in the New Testament.' So what! We know the word is Ge-hinnom. Who cares if it's always translated Gehenna. It's Ge-hinnom, that's what it is, all the scholars in the world know that. If you go to the Old Testament you will find the words "Valley of Hinnom" and "Valley of the sun," (Ge-ben-hinnom - Valley of the son of Hinnom) over and over and over again (Joshua 15: 8; 18:16; 2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chron. 28:3; 33:6; Nehemiah 11:30; Jeremiah 7:31,32; 19:2,6; 32:35), and never once will you read 'hell.'  Now am I going too fast for anyone?

If the Hebrew Ge-hinnom is always translated valley of Hinnom and Gehenna is the Greek equivalent of Ge-hinnom is translated hell, where is the justification for that? If Ge-hinnom means valley of Hinnom, then why doesn't Gehenna mean valley of Hinnom in the New Testament? Can you see that it's an error on the part of the translators, they all know that that Greek transcripted word Gehenna is Ge-hinnom, they all know that. Why then don't their translations say, "shall be in danger of Ge-hinnom fire," because that's what He said and we know from the Old Testament that's what it means?

But Mr. Brock suggests that since Christ was made sin, he says that word 'sin' is nowhere translated 'sin offering' in the New Testament (Excuse me, I guess I did go to fast for somebody). So what! It's almost always translated sin offering in the Old Testament. Do we think that the people who are responsible for the New Testament didn't know anything about the Hebrew? 

Why do you suppose when they put that sign over Christ's head, when they crucified Him they put it in Hebrew? Because the people of Jerusalem spoke Hebrew. Excuse me, what Scriptures did they have in the New Testament church? Hebrew. All Scriptures were Hebrew. "Study and show yourself approved," (2 Tim. 2:15). Study what? The Hebrew Scriptures. There were no other Scriptures, there were only Hebrew Scriptures.  So we read in 2 Cor.

2 Cor. 5:21  For He (God) has made (Gk. #4160 - 'to make or to do' - aorist tense) Him (His Son Jesus) to be (not in the original Gk.) sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made (Gk. #1096 - 'to cause to be') the righteousness of God in Him. (King James)

Now the second phrase there ought to tell us immediately that He was not literally made sin, because it said "who knew no sin"! So Coy said, we have a seemingly contradiction here and he's going to explain it, He was made sin... "who knew no sin" how are those two compatible? Well he is going to show that they are very compatible. Well I am here to tell you they are NOT compatible at all. There is no compatibility between "made sin" and "knew no sin."

It's understandable that if we say 'made sin,' we also mean became sin. He was not made sin, if He wasn't sin. If He was made sin, then He was sin. But if He wasn't always sin, then was made sin, then He became sin. So not only do they say that He was made sin, but He became sin and He was sin. Is that true? Is that true when it says, "who knew no sin"? How can you be made sin and not even know sin, on a personal level?

Coy shows all through his talk that Christ was well acquainted with sin, that He knew sin. Now he will be careful and tell you he was never a sinner. But he contradicts, that's what I want to show you. It's all double talk, it's all double speak, it's all smoke and mirrors. There is not one Scripture that he uses properly in his whole talk, not one. 

Now lest you think I'm too haughty... I use to believe years ago that Christ was "made sin." But did I believe that He was a sinner? No, I didn't. Did I believe that He became sin? No. Did I believe He was guilty of sin? No. But did I believe He was made sin? Yes. Why? Because the Bible said so, okay.

Well then what did I think that meant? I'll tell you what I thought it meant. I thought that it meant sin was somehow (all the sin of the world) imputed to Christ. That they were not His, He didn't commit them, He didn't experience them. But He accepted them as a debt that needed to be paid, okay. That's what I thought it meant. As I look at it now, I was right. But I wasn't right far enough, because there is more. 

Yes sin was imputed to Him in that... like this, did Christ sin? No. Did we sin? Yes. Is there a penalty? Yes. Christ said, I'll take your sin and I'll pay your penalty. Did now, Christ sin? No. Is He guilty of sin? No. He just said I'll pay the penalty for them. He died FOR us, the Bible says. He didn't die in our place instead. He didn't die so we don't have to die. He died FOR us. That is a positive act. 


                                                                            OFFERINGS

Years ago I learned that that Scripture is not proper. Yes it does translate the word for word, like we find it in the manuscript. But that's not a proper translation. I just showed you word for word is not a proper way to translate. That will not fill the bill. In some areas it will fill the bill and in some areas it will not. I didn't take the time to get the examples where you could plainly see that there are other words needed or you are not translating at all. 

So I learned that this means 'to be made a sin offering' and not to be made sin itself. There's a difference between sin and a sin offering. Now let me make this as simple as I can make it. If a man beat his child let's say, mercilessly. Two witnesses, in the Old Testament... so somebody says, 'you can't beat your child like that.'  Somebody else steals something or somebody did something (not of a capital punishment, because then they would stone them to death) let just say it infringes in some area, maybe they spoke harshly to their wife (there was no death penalty for that), but it was a sin.

Now there was such a thing as a sin offering, even though you were guilty for sin (beating your child - stealing - spoke harshly to your wife) you could give an offering to God and He would forgive you that sin. Why? Because you didn't commit it? No, you did commit it. Well then why, if you commit a sin and you are guilty of the sin, why doesn't He hold it against you? Because of the sin offering! 

Now they offered every morning of everyday a lamb or a goat, it was a sin offering. That goat was offered in behalf of somebody's sin or everybody's sin, whatever the case might be. It might be an individual offering, it might be the morning offering for the whole congregation, the animal is OFFERED for the sin. Now when that animal is offered for the sin is that animal guilty of speaking harshly to it's wife? Come on this is not rocket science. It's a sin OFFERING, it's not 'the' sin. Jesus Christ is not 'the' sin of the world. This is rank heresy. This is the worse kind of teaching I have ever heard in my life. This is the bottom of the barrel, the dredges, this is dirty religion. 

Jesus Christ was not 'the sin' of the world offered on the cross, He died on the cross FOR our sins. Can you not understand simple words? An offering was a sacrifice back in Israel 'for' the sin. That's why it was not called sin, it was called a SIN OFFERING. 

Here is 2 Cor. 5:21 translated;

"For Him who knew no Sin, He made a Sin-offering on our behalf, that we might become God's Righteousness in Him" (Emphatic Diaglott).

"For the One not knowing sin, He makes [Gk. Aorist - not past tense] to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God's righteousness in Him" (Concordant N.T.).

This is the proper order too. It should not be "for He made Him sin," the first phrase is "For Him who knew no Sin."


                                                                     OLD TESTAMENT AUTHORITY

Do they have any authority to translate that word "sin"  into "sin offering"? Coy Brock says no, he doesn't see it anywhere in the New Testament. 

There was no New Testament and the way you learned about these Hebrew things was through the Hebrew Scriptures. Have we now come to the place where we can't understand something in the New Testament unless it tells us in the New Testament what it means? Are we no longer at liberty to go to the Old Testament for a double witness or a triple witness or for an explanation of a Scripture that appears in the New Testament? Are we no longer allowed to do that? 

Fifty-four (54) times in the book of Leviticus alone... one book, we see the words 'sin' all by itself s-i-n, sin translated sin offering. Guess what? The word offering is never found in italics in those places, because it is a part of the translation, it means 'sin offering.' The word offering is understood. In all fifty-four the King James got it right, but in the New Testament they apparently or conveniently forgot that Christ, who was indeed "our PASSOVER," was therefore also our "sin OFFERING." 

1 Cor. 5:7  Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us.

Christ is our Passover. The Passover lamb was an offering, it was a sacrifice, it was not 'the' sin of Israel. Do you follow? It was a offering - a sacrifice. Jesus Christ is that sacrifice, He is that Passover, it says so. Now was that Passover lamb 'the' sin or was it just a sacrifice 'for' sin? Well we know the answer to that. 

Lev 4:20  And he shall do6213 with the bullock6499 as834 he did6213 with the bullock6499 for a sin offering,2403 so3651 shall he do6213 with this: and the priest3548 shall make an atonement3722 for5921 them, and it shall be forgiven5545 them.

I left the numbers right in there, you can see the Hebrew word # 2403 you've got two words "sin offerings" for the one word. If you look up that #2403 it will give you the definition of sin, not the definition of offering. How come they translate it sin offering? Because all Hebrews knew that that's what it meant. 

If Hebrews don't understand their own language, how are we going to translate anything? By whose authority are we going to translate Hebrew Scripture if the Hebrews don't understand their own language? Can we see how they did it? What justification is there for saying Christ is made sin, period? He was made a 'sin offering' and the Scripture proves it, fifty-four times in the book of Leviticus alone.

Lev 4:24  And he shall lay5564 his hand3027 upon5921 the head7218 of the goat,8163 and kill7819 it in the place4725 where834 they kill7819 (853) the burnt offering5930 before6440 the LORD:3068 it1931 is a sin offering.2403

Did you notice "burnt offering," there is one Hebrew word next to it. Do you think that word defines the word offering? No... burnt, what does burnt mean?  It means a burnt offering, that's what the word means. 

He made Him - Christ to be a sin offering. Sin, what does it mean? Well you say, 'that's the way you translate it.'  No it's not.  I mean if this guy can see dozens, if not hundreds, of places where the Scripture are not properly translated in the New Testament, why can't they see this? Because they have an idle of the heart and they won't give it up. It's a damnable idle and it's blasphemous. They will give account, trust me they will.
Just in case you think, 'well there is no word for offering, that's why they had to stick it there.' Oh there is, look at this verse.

Lev 4:29  And he shall lay5564 (853) his hand3027 upon5921 the head7218 of the sin offering,2403 and slay7819 (853) the sin offering2403 in the place4725 of the burnt offering.5930

Notice that in every case, "sin offering" is translated from only one word, not two and that one word [Heb. chattaah - stands for "sin" and not for offering]. Offering is understood. Notice in the Scripture that the same is true for "burnt offering."

I checked to see if there was anybody worth their weight as far as a scholar goes. There are many, but I'll give you just one to see that this is not just Ray Smith's interpretation. This is one authority on Hebrew and Greek who understands the meaning of the word hamartia (sin) #266 in the Greek according to Strong's numbering, when used in these contexts:

"Sin-offering is an alternate meaning of hamartia found in the Greek Old Testament. Since the apostles and the church at Corinth mainly used the Septuagint, they undoubted understood that hamartis [Gk: For 'sin'] could mean a sin-offering. This was not an ambiguous, obscure, or hard to understand passage for those Greek Christians who received this letter, or other early Christians who read it later." (Redemption Realized Through Christ By Leland M. Haines)

Did you see that "in the Greek Old Testament," what a proof we have here. Guess how they translated the Hebrew word for sin into the Greek? Sin offering. They had one Hebrew word for sin... now they are translated in the Hebrew Scripture into Greek, this is what we call the Septuagint. It was seventy scholars which translated the Old Hebrew Scripture into the Greek two hundred years before Christ ever came. They translated the single Hebrew word for sin - sin offering, two words. 

Of course this was not ambiguous or strange or difficult. These people understood Hebrew, and Greek was now the main language of trade and so on. Why? Because Alexander conquered that whole part of the world. They were speaking Greek in Egypt. People forget that Egyptians use to speak Greek. The Ptolemys were Greek.  Cleopatra Queen of Egypt was Greek. 

Lev 4:23  Or176 if his sin,2403 wherein834 he hath sinned,2398 come to his knowledge;3045, 413 he shall bring935 (853) his offering,7133 a kid8163 of the goats,5795 a male2145 without blemish:8549

Occasionally the word 'offering' is used by itself. In this verse you see the word offering there and the word is #7133, it is not the word #2403. There is a word for offering, but it is speaking about the sin and the burnt and the trespass 'offering.'

The Hebrew for "offering" is 'qorban qurban' and is defined as "something brought near the altar." But these words for offering are missing from all of the fifty-four times "sin offering" is found in the book of Leviticus.  Only the word for sin is found, but it means and is properly translated fifty-four times as "sin offering."

When it's talking about Jesus was made sin, He was made a sin offering. Coy just passes over this one phrase, like well that's all there is to that, that takes care of that. That takes care of nothing. That's scholarship on the level of sand pile or kindergarten at best. 

Now in Ezekiel 44, does anyone really believe that God was telling them that they should eat their "sin" and eat the "trespass"? Rather than the sin and trespass "offering." Eat your sin? 

Now I'm showing that not only is it right and proper to translate it sin offering, burnt offering, trespass offering and so on. Not only are we right and proper, but I want to show you that it is no other way possible that it is translated in some instances. Here is one of them, in Ezekiel 44.

Eze. 44:29  They1992 shall eat398 the meat offering,4503 and the sin offering,2403 and the trespass offering;817 and every3605 dedicated thing2764 in Israel3478 shall be1961 theirs.

Now you could leave off  the word "offering" in the first one and say, "they shall eat the meat," right, you could eat meat. But how do you eat sin? How do you eat trespass? You can't eat sin. Here's proof... do you notice that after sin offering there is only one word #2403, that's why I left the numbers in there. After trespass only one word #817. It was the offering that they were eating, an offering as a tangible piece of food, be it meat or cake or bread or whatever, it's tangible food, you can eat it. But you can't eat sin. Am I going to fast for anyone?

[Kat]

PART 1 - Page 2


                                   THE PASSOVER

Now we have the same situation with the word Passover. Notice that in Like 22, the Passover is called "the feast." 

Luke 22:1  Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

Yet we know that the Passover was an "offering" in addition to being the "feast" of the offering. They were going to keep the Passover, that is keep the feast, but they didn't eat the feast. Later on it says they ate the Passover, so they ate the feast? No, they ate the Passover offering, the Passover sacrifice. Notice in Numbers 9.

Num 9:13   But the man that is clean, and is not in a journey...
Num 9:14  "And if a stranger shall sojourn...

This is talking about the man that was in a journey and is not present when the Passover is given, what did he do? He was out of town, did he miss out on the Passover? Are his sins not going to be covered because he missed out on this?

Num 9:13  ...forbear to keep the Passover, even the same soul shall be cut off from among his people: because he brought not the offering of the LORD in his appointed season...

So when we come down to verse 7 and 8 of Luke 22, are we suppose to believe that they killed the 'Passover feast' and made ready to eat the 'Passover feast,' or is it not understood that they were to kill the 'Passover offering' and eat the 'Passover offering'?

Luke 22:7  Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the Passover must be killed.
v. 8  And he sent Peter and John, saying, Go and prepare us the Passover, that we may eat.

What was the offering? The Passover. What was the Passover? A lamb. Who was Jesus Christ? He is the Lamb of God, He is the Passover sacrifice for us, Paul said so. That Passover is called an offering. So if Jesus Christ was the Lamb of God and represented the Passover, was He a sin offering or was He not? This is not hard. You've got to be a spiritual dunce to not be able to see this. Excuse me, did you hear what I said? Christ is the Lamb of God. What did they sacrifice? They sacrificed a lamb. Christ is the Lamb of God. Paul said Christ, our Passover is sacrificed for us. Christ is the Lamb, Christ is the Passover, what is the Passover called? In Numbers 9:13 it says "the offering"! Got it? Don't ever forget it. Don't let these people lie to you. 


                                    SECOND WITNESS

If 2 Cor. 5:21 really and literally means Jesus was made sin, how is it that this verse now becomes it's sole and own explanation of itself? Again I taught these principles early in my Lake of Fire. I'm the one who brought in the Concordant definition, of where it says in the King James;

2 Peter 1:20  Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. (KJV)

2 Peter 1:20  knowing this first, that no prophecy of scripture at all is becoming its own explanation. (CLV)

The word "private" means own or self. I mean it's close to the word private, but not quite. It means no Scripture is it's own explanation. No Scripture explains itself. Not that it might not partly explain it, but you've got to have another explanation of it. Now my question is why do we throw these principles away? I wrote about them in great detail in the Lake of Fire. People read them, listened to them and checked them out and believed them and now they throw them away? Like these principles no longer apply? Where is the explanation of how Christ was made sin in another Scripture? 

2 Cor. 13:1  ...In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

I've listened to his whole talk and he brought no other Scripture that showed how Christ was 'made sin' or where it says He was made sin, became sin, was sin in some way. He just says, 'oh this is when it happened.'  So let's go there, does it say that? No. He says, 'oh we discussed that.'  Discussed what? Let's go back to where we discussed it, where did he discuss where He was made sin. How... where? Nonsense.

So not only does this now become it's own explanation, but it also becomes it's own second and third witness I guess. Where is the second and third witness to the fact that, if that's what they believe, that Christ was made sin, that He actually was made and became and was sin? Where is the second and third witness? Oh we don't need a second and third witness when we are preaching heresy. 

Listen I know how to defend the Word of God, trust me I do. These people are out of there league. When you blaspheme the Word of God, you are out of your league. I don't care who you are or how many degrees you have. I don't care who you are James Kennedy with six doctorates. When you blaspheme the name of God you are out of your league. 

Now do we find the words 'made sin' anywhere in the Scripture, anywhere in the entirety of the Bible, except 2 Cor. 5:21 where it is not translated properly. Do we find that someplace else to substantiate that this is indeed right and proper? Do we find the words 'made sin' anywhere in the Bible? No we don't! You say, 'those words would show up somewhere, made sin.' Check your E-Sword, I did, there are no such words. 


                                BOUGHT AND PURCHASED

2 Peter 2:1  But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Now I've read that Scripture a hundred times, quoted it a hundred, thought about it a hundred. But never bringing to bear the words "bought them" in connection with damnable heresy. Notice it, because I'm going to bring it in today. 

"Even denying the Lord that bought them." What does that mean? Ransom - redeeming. Jesus Christ redeems us! 

It's like if you pawn your ring at the pawn store, you can redeem it, but you got to pay for it. You can't say, 'you know I pawned my ring here last month and I want it back.' If you don't have any money, you won't get it back. If you want to redeem that ring, you've got to pay the money, you've got to pay for the redemption.

Jesus Christ is our Redeemer! Notice it He "bought them." You know He paid something. "Denying the Lord that bought them," because this kind of evil dirty religion, saying that Jesus Christ was made sin denies that Jesus bought us! It absolutely does. According to Jesus Christ being made sin, then He had to pay for His own sin. If He was sin, He needed to go to the cross and to be killed to pay for His own sin. Where do you read such damnable heresy, that Jesus went to the cross to pay for His own sin?  He paid for OUR sin, He bought US. We are bought and paid for. Now let me give you an analogy so you can understand this. I gave this to Bob one day when we were discussing this. 

I said imagine our sins are a monetary debt that we owe. God even uses parables to show this, doesn't He (The Unmerciful Servant - Matt. 18). Because it shows we owe this much money and they forgive those and then this person doesn't... but Christ says I forgive you this, but you wouldn't forgive others. 

He's not talking about money, He's talking about spiritual sins and spiritual things that have to do with behavior, not actual dollars. So let's just continue their analogy, it's not mine. If you go to Acts 20.

Act 20:28  Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with His own blood.

Did Jesus purchase Himself with His owe blood? If He was made sin He would have had to pay for Himself.  Where did you ever read such evil things in the Scripture? Nowhere. 

He "hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God..." It was the church of God that He purchased with His own blood, so He purchased US. Paul said He purchased us, Peter said He bought us. 

So let's continue this analogy of Christ buying us - purchasing us. Everyone's sins equate to a debt. Some accumulate a hundred thousand dollars in sin debt, others ten million dollars. As we are all "wretched, and miserable, and POOR, and blind, and naked" (Rev. 3:17).

So all of us have sins. I've got a million eight hundred thousand dollars worth of sins, Gordon is three million, Denny you can't even count that high. But we all have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of sin debt. Let's put it on a monetary level, since they brought up the analogy, not me. You say, 'ah you are using an analogy that doesn't fit.' I didn't come up with it, Peter brought it up, Paul brought it up, Peter said bought, Paul said purchased. 

So Christ comes into the room and He says, 'Denny let me have it, how much debt you got... whoa, oh my six million dollars worth. Okay Gordon three million, now Bob two million four hundred thousand, Kathy one million six hundred ninety seven thousand dollars and fourteen cents.' He takes them all, He's got a whole hand full now. 
But He does more, He goes up and down the by-way, He goes around the world and He takes EVERYBODY'S 'I OWE YOU' notes, so many millions of dollars for their sins. We've put it on a monetary level now. 

He takes all those debts and He puts them on His shoulders, He's baring them on His shoulders, all these debts. And He says to His Father, You see all these I'm going to pay their debts, of humanity... Gordon owes over three million dollars, Kathy owes a million four hundred seventeen thousand and fourteen cents, He says Father I'm going to pay for them all Myself. I'm going to pay their debts. You following this analogy? Not going to fast for anyone? 

His Father says, 'well done Son, but if You are going to pay it, I'm going to hold you to it.' He said, okay, and the Father says, 'You sure You want to do this?'  He says, Yea I want to do it. Did His Father say I'm going to make you pay their debts? Go out there and gather up their debts and I'm going to make You, I'm going to force You and in fact I'll beat the tar out of You if You don't pay their debts? Do we read that in the Scriptures anywhere? 

Jesus is Himself of His own volition volunteering to be an OFFERING for these debts. He is OFFERING [the verb] to be the OFFERING [the noun]. Jesus Christ said;

John 10:18  No man takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

Does it not say that? Did He have to die? He volunteered! But His Father said, okay I'm going to hold You to it. Now Jesus Christ has all these debts on His shoulders, trillions of dollars worth of debts, because He says I will take them, I will pay them. Did He at any place or time in His life incur those debts? No! Is He guilty of those debts that we all committed? No! Does He become our debt? Can we say now, 'I didn't commit any sins, He did? Did the Father ever say, since You volunteered to pay their debts, You've guilty of their debts?  Did He ever say that?

Still using the analogy of Peter and Paul. Because Jesus Christ volunteers to pay our debts, does not mean that He incurred them or is guilty of them! How hard can that be?  Well I tell you when you are spiritually blind as a bat, you'll never see it. Because that idol of your heart will stand in the way. This is not rocket science, this is really easy spiritual lessons. 

Jesus Christ never incurred a single debt in His life. He never was responsible for a debt. He never was guilty of a debt. He never became a debt. He became the One who offered - offering, do you see the connection of those two words. He offered to be the offering FOR the debts. 

How many times do we read He died for 'our' sins? Well how many times do we read He died for 'His' sin? Never. Now can somebody poke holes through my little analogy that Peter and Paul used? That we were bought and paid for - purchased, can anybody poke holes through it? 

If Harry owes back taxes for eight hundred dollars and we go down to the court house and Harry doesn't have eight hundred and they say, 'well he'll go to jail.' I say, but I have eight hundred dollars and I'm going to pay it for him. Now am I now guilty of not paying my taxes? No! Then how did Jesus Christ become sin? What if I say, you know what, on second thought I change my mind, let Harry pay his own back taxes. Will the judge say take Ray Smith and put him in jail? Well if I 'became' his debt then the judge could put me in jail, right? If I became his debt. 

Did Jesus Christ ever become sin? No! Was He a sin offering? Absolutely. That's too hard for some.

What have I been reading in this dirty little religion, they say the wrath of God was upon Jesus Christ, He was marred in the hand... first He was conceived in sin, then He was birthed in antiquity, then He was marred in the hand of His own maker, then He had the wrath of God poured out upon Him for His whole life. Then when Christ rebelled against Him, supposedly in the garden and He crushed Him to death. This is worse than dirty religion, this is blasphemy like I've never seen the likes of before. This really is evil heresy and has not one Scripture to back up anything they say. Not one. It's not that they have some and are wrong in a few, they have not one.

John 10:17  Therefore doth My Father love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again.
v. 18  No man takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself.

How many times does Jesus Christ have to say that before we believe Him? At no place in His life did He have to be crucified. Where did He reach a point in His life where He said My Father is going to kill Me regardless, that I have no more choice in the matter? He was an adult man when He said, "I lay down My life... no man takes it from Me, but I lay it down Myself." 

Where do we read as they say, 'but the truth of the matter was that this is all false, Jesus Christ was lying to us. He incurred the death penalty because He was born sin and needs to die and the wrath of God is going to be poured out upon Him.' What utter foolish nonsense.

When Jesus Christ said these words, was He under condemnation of death by His Father? Or did He speak the truth when He said, "I lay it down of Myself," nobody makes Me do it. Was that not the Truth? Is that what is being taught in this dirty religion? Absolutely not. They say He was marred in His Father's hands from His very creation, conceived in sin. It doesn't get any worse than this. So you deny the blood that purchased you, when you deny that you are being purchased in the first place. He purchased us, He bought us, He redeemed us, He paid for us, for US not for Himself. 

If He was sin He needed to pay for His own sin too, at least in addition too, you see what I'm saying. They also deny the gospel and let me prove that to you. I know how to use the Scriptures, God shows me the words, then He shows me the Scriptures that back up the words and I have other explanations of Scriptures. I have second and third and forth witnesses to the Scriptures. This dirty religion does not. 

1 Cor. 15:1  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
v. 2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain (feignedly).

The Concordant has feignedly - faked it. If you really believe in Jesus Christ, you are in this condition, if you do and keep in mind all these things. Unless you faked it.

v. 3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;

Now in this talk of Coy's does he show how Christ died being sin, being made sin, actually becoming sin, according to the Scriptures? Does he have a Scripture for that? No, they have not one Scripture, not one. 
Now I'm going to show you a Scripture... I gave you one authority and I could have given you many. When it says sin that word also means sin offering, especially in the context when it is dealing with somebody being a sacrifice for sin. I showed you fifty-four times it appears in the book of Leviticus alone, sin offering. The singular word sin - sin offering, the singular word burnt - burnt offering, the singular word trespass - trespass offering. 
But when it comes to Jesus Christ the greatest offering of all.  He says, 'no He was no offering, it doesn't mean offering, I don't see it in the New Testament.' Excuse me but (holding up the Bible) this is the New Testament, and this is the Old Testament, the Old Testament is a little thicker isn't it.  Maybe there is a lot of info in there that we need to pay heed to.

Contrary to Coy's utter blasphemous nonsense. Do we have a confirmation of 2 Cor. 5:21, that Christ was made a sin 'offering'? The experts tell us that that word denotes sin offering. Fifty-four times in one book alone I showed, sin offering. 

For sure Christ's sacrifice for sin is the topic of the immediate preceding verses to 2 Cor. 5:21;

2 Cor. 25:14 ...if One (Christ) which died for all...
v. 15 And that He died for them...unto Him which died for them
v. 19 To wit [that is], that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them [but paying their sin debt FOR THEM, NOT having God's wrath poured out on Himself because Christ Himself was sin, or guilty of sin, or had incurred a sin debt]...
v. 21 For [or because] He has made Him a sin OFFERING for us, who knew NO SIN... (v.21, Concordant Literal New Testament and other translations).

Christ was the Lamb of God, He is our Passover sacrifice for us and we learn from the Old Testament that the Passover Lamb was an offering. Do we not see that? We saw the Scripture, right. 

[Kat]

PART 1 - Page 3


                               SECOND CONFIRMATION

Now then do we have a second confirmation? Do we have a second confirmation that Christ was made sin? Is there another phrase 'made sin' anywhere in the entirety of the Bible? No there is not.

But Christ was made a sin offering, as the Concordant and the Diaglott and others tell us. Do we have a second confirmation of 2 Tim. 5:21, that Christ was made 'a sin offering'? Since it cannot be "its OWN explanation" (2 Peter 1:21).  As a matter of fact we do. You knew that didn't you. In Isaiah 52 in my Bible there is this heading, it's in italics so it's not inspired. But that's one reason I love this Nelson Bible of mine, because it gives you all of these headings, so you don't have to look through pages to find it. The heading reads The Messiah's Atonement, so the publishers of this Bible understand beginning in this verse these Scriptures are talking about who? The Messiah! 

Isa 52:13  Behold, My servant shall deal prudently, He shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
v. 14  As many were astonished at Thee; His visage was so marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men:
v. 15  So shall He sprinkle many nations...
Isa 53:1  Who hath believed our report?

Yeah, who is going to believe this Scripture, of those who are following this dirty religion, who is going to believe it? I'll tell you who will believe it, not one. Why? Because they are following a man and they have idols of the heart and they have no real interest in the Truths of God, but only those idols. 

Isa 53:2  For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: He hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him.
v. 3  He is despised and rejected of men; a Man of sorrows (is this stuff talking about Jesus Christ? The New Testament tells us these Scriptures are speaking of Jesus Christ), and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from Him; He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.
v. 4  Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows (it doesn't say anything about carrying His own sins, does it - ours): yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Yes He was afflicted, but the wrath of God? No. You won't read wrath of God, it is through many afflictions, many trials, many tribulations that we enter the kingdom of God. We do not enter the kingdom of God through wrath!

Isa 53:5  But He was wounded for our transgressions (whose transgressions? His?  Ours!), He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed.
v.6  All we like sheep have gone astray (Did Jesus like a sheep go astray?); we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

The only iniquity on Jesus Christ shoulders was ours, not His.

Isa 53:7  He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth: He is brought as a Lamb to the slaughter (what is that ? That's a sacrifice isn't it, wait a minute was He brought as a Lamb of sin? I mean you just don't read the nonsense do you), and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so He opens not His mouth.
v. 8  He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare His generation? for He was cut off out of the land of the living (what because He was sin? Because He was born in iniquity, birthed in iniquity conceived in sin? Because He was marred in His makers hand? Because He had to be crushed by the wrath of God? Where do you see such evil dirty religion in these verses): for the transgression of my people was He stricken.
v. 9  And He made His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His death; because He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in His mouth.

Well where were all these sins of Jesus Christ found then? If He actually was sin, the personification of sin, where were they? They were not in His actions, they were not in His mouth, they were not in His mind, they were not in His heart, where were they?

Isa.  53:10  Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief...

We are looking for a confirmation of 2 Cor. 5:21 where Christ was made a sin offering. Now that is what it needs to be translated a 'sin offering.' Do we have a second confirmation of that?

v. 10 ...When thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.

Just let that sink in. Was Jesus Christ made sin or was He made an OFFERING for sin? Well you just read it, "an offering for sin." There it is! You can't deny that. What is that? That's GOSPEL! Paul said I gave you the gospel, "how that Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scripture" (1 Cor.15:1-3). How did He die according to the Scripture? He was made an offering for sin! 

Isa.  53:11 ...for He shall bear their iniquities [not His iniquities].

Jesus Christ did not have any iniquities before the cross or during the cross.

v. 12 ...He bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


                         NEW TESTAMENT EXAMPLES

1 Cor. 15:3 ...Christ died for OUR sins...

Gal. 1:4  Who gave Himself for OUR sins...

Heb. 1:3  He had by Himself purged OUR sins...

1 Peter 3:24  Who His Own Self bare Our sins in His Own BODY on the tree, that WE not Jesus, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness...

Had Jesus been literally "made sin," then He HIMSELF would be the one "being dead to sins" on the cross, NOT US.  Jesus' death on the cross did not kill or clean out any sin IN HIS MIND. Jesus never had a "carnal mind." Jesus never sinned with His mind.  Jesus never became sin in His OWN mind. Jesus took our sins IN HIS PHYSICAL BODY, not in His spiritual mind. They nailed Christ's physical body as an offering to the cross; they did not nail His spiritual mind to the cross. Am I going to fast for anyone?

1 John 2:2  And He is the propitiation for OUR sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

Excuse me, but does anyone read... "For He IS MADE SIN for our sins..."? "For He IS SIN for our sins..."? No, a thousand times no. He is "the PROPITIATION for our sins..." Propitiation is from the Greek hilasmos and it means 'atonement.' 

From The American Heritage College Dictionary we read this: propitiation, - a conciliatory OFFERING.

So "Jesus is THE OFFERING for our sins," and the sins of the whole world. 

1 John 4:10  Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son [to be what? To be made sin? To BE sin? NO, lets read it...] to BE the propitiation  [the atoning OFFERING] for OUR sins.

1 John 3:5  And we know [well thankfully at least some know] that He was manifested to take away OUR sins:  and in Him I-S  N-O  S-I-N.

How pray tell could there be NO SIN IN HIM, if He Himself was MADE SIN and therefore IS SIN? Can we all say 'contradiction' together? Can we all say "blasphemous LIE" together? You have no idea how much I loathe and despise such dirty religion.

We have now read in the Scripture that Jesus was prophesied to be an "offering" for our sins and that He "bare our sins in His Own body." His body containing His very life and soul WAS THE OFFERING SACRIFICE which they crucified and nailed to the cross. But do we have an even more specific declaration as to just how (specifically) our sins were taken away by that offering sacrifice of His Own body? Yes we do, and it is found in the first chapter of the last revelation from our Lord.

Rev. 1:5  And from Jesus Christ, Who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.  Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from OUR sins IN HIS OWN  B-L-O-O-D.

So Jesus Christ did not take away our sins by being "MADE into sin," being made OUR sin, did He? No, of course not. Jesus was made a "OFFERING for sin." His Own body was the offering, and it was the BLOOD inside of His body that would actually do the cleansing and removing of our sin. We were not washed in the mind of Jesus by Jesus' mind becoming our sin and the sin of the world, but we were washed by "His Own BLOOD" to accomplish this. It was the blood that came OUT of His body that was the real sacrifice.

1 John 1:7 ...and the BLOOD of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.

Remember: "...when Thou [God] shall made His SOUL [nephesh] an offering for sin..." (Isa. 53:10).  And just where is the "soul"  of man found?

Lev 17:11  For the life ['soul' - nephesh, not '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 makes an atonement for the soul.

And so it is abundantly clear from the Scriptures, that it was not the heart or mind of Jesus that was the actual offering for sin, but His Own body which contained His blood. This very blood which contains Christ's soul, that was poured out onto the ground, which atones for OUR sin, not for His sin - JESUS HAD NO SIN NOR WAS HE MADE TO BE SIN.

Does anybody from this dirty little religion want to challenge me on that? I know where of I speak, they might deceive some, I hope they don't deceive anybody who hears this after today. This teaching is rank heresy and blasphemy on the highest level. This is the worst teaching I have heard, save eternal torment, of any heretic on this earth! This is the worst!

I was going to try to incorporate a whole message into one today, but I can't. So next time I'm going to cover the points Coy goes through, 6 points. Now we touched upon some of them, but I want to show you... like he makes this statement that Jesus experienced everything we experience. What? What is his topic- How Christ Became Sin, He experienced everything we experience is what came out of the man's mouth, I lie not. 

But I will go through this in minute detail. I hope when we are done that you and anybody who hears this study of mine will never ever have a doubt that Jesus Christ was NOT made sin - He was not conceived in sin, He was conceived by the Holy Spirit for crying out loud. Is the Holy Spirit of God sin? David said he was conceived in sin. But there was no physical man who had sexual intercourse with Mary. Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit. I'll give you this one proof that Coy has that Christ was made sin, it says; 

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

Then he takes the Scripture that says in John 17;

John 17:5  And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self with the glory which I had with Thee before the world was.

So he says Christ is saying here, I'm falling short of Your glory and that's the definition of sin. Did you follow that? Well I'll deal with such evil circular reasoning in the next study. Unbelievable, I mean this stuff really is over the top. But I hope when you see the Truth that it will inspire you, that the Truth will inspire you so much so that you will never be deceived by this dirty religion.

[Kat]

PART 2

                         Was Christ Made Sin?

I'm not going to start writing a rebuttal to all the articles and papers that are on the little dissident site. But this one subject of was Christ made sin, I think is so big and so important and so heretical and so unscriptural and so blasphemous. I just can't help myself from taking it on.

I wouldn't even do that if this were just some individual out there on the internet who was doing this, I couldn't care less. There are tens of thousands, even millions who have all kinds of sites and all kinds of heresy and I am not going to spend the rest of my life trying to straighten out all kinds of heresy. I've got better things to do. 

But these people have tried to lead off people who came to a knowledge of the Truth from Bible-truths.com. They've got mailing list and telephone numbers, emails addresses and they are trying to lead them off, I mean there is no getting around that. They are trying their best, they are hell bent on getting a following, that is what they want. That would be a major achievement to get a following. They don't know that their ministry is dead in the water, it is as dead as the spirit that drives it.

So I started this last study (Was Christ made sin, part 1) and we talked about some things. I said I would finish it up in a part 2. So I'm going to book end this thing, I'm going to nail it to the wall, I'm going to destroy it.

The big Scripture that is used to show that Christ was made sin is the one that I and countless other scholars (I mean real scholars that understand the languages and translating) and numerous versions show that 2 Cor. 5:21 should not be that He made Him sin, but a sin offering. Now I have more material on that.

The word translated there "sin" is hamartia.  Now Coy says regarding this, 'this word every where else in the Greek Scriptures is translated sin.' He also says, 'for  to insist that this be called a sin offering  is conjecture.'  That is all he has and he thinks that takes care of it. But I want to show you in Hebrews 10 that we can glean from the Scriptures themselves that this is not true what he said, that it should be translated sin and not sin offering and to say that it be translated a sin offering is conjecture. Absolutely not true.

Heb 10:6  In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have had no pleasure.

In that verse the word "sin" is hamartia. But if you notice in your Bibles they do insert the word "sacrifices."

I learned something back in Pennsylvania when I was about 5 or 6 years old, I heard the says many times, 'there is more than one way to skin a cat.' 

Mathematics is a marvelous science, you can take a couple of known factors and then come up with a formula that will give you other facts concerning that. Like whether you are trying to find out how much power it takes to send a projectile through the air; at a certain angle, with a certain velocity and with a certain weight and how far will it go and what will be the angle of drop, all of that. Can you do that mathematically? Yes you can and you don't have to have all of the facts, you can glean it form other areas. That is what is so amazing to me about mathematics. That you can know the unknown, by things that don't tell you the unknown. You have a fact, but it doesn't tell you what you want to know. But when you put a couple of those facts together you can formulate a formula that will tell you what the missing facts are.  So I never forgot that and I use that in my everyday life.

Now notice what it says here Hebrew 10.

Heb 10:5  Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he says, Sacrifice and offering you would not, but a body hast you prepared me:
v. 6  In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you hast had no pleasure.
v. 7  Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do Your will, O God.
v. 8  Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin you would not, neither had pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Now Coy says it's conjecture to say that 2 Cor. 5:21 "He was made sin" should be translated "sin offering." No he says, He was really made sin. Of course there is no other Scripture in the Bible that says that. 

Now there is a problem with that. Because even if that were an accurate translation there is still a problem, because you don't have a second and a third witness. No where else does it say anything close to those words, that Jesus is sin - was sin - became sin - represented sin, it doesn't say that anywhere else. Of course I say along with many others that it is not a proper translation. If you read Concordant or the Diaglott or various other ones, the New International Version even in their footnote, and the Williams translation, it's "sin offering."

But notice here in verse 6 it says; "In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin you hast had no pleasure." Then down in verse 8 when he said; "Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin you would not." Did you notice that your Bible has "offering" and "sacrifice" both in italics. Let's just be honest and logical. Question, why did they put that there? If it doesn't belong there, why did they put it there? You say, 'well they put it there to make the meaning clearer.' Oh, you mean if they would have just put 'sin' the meaning would not have been clear? Even though the word for offering is not there (there is a single Greek word for offering), it should be there, because it's the only way to properly understand it. Well then just maybe that is the proper way to translate it. Think about this. You say, 'well it's in italics, it's not in the original.' So what, there are lots of words when you translate from one language to another, that are not in the first language, they are in the second language. Because as I have said many times, you can not translate any language word for word into any other language. Not just into English, but in any language, it's not possible.

I put in one of our Lake of Fire papers, 'what you don't know won't hard you.' When I was thinking about that, I said, 'honey do you have a saying like that in German (my wife is from Germany).' She says, 'well kind of, what you don't know won't make you hot.' It's the same, it means exactly the same thing. We say what you don't know won't hurt you and the Germans say what you don't know won't make you hot. Well what happens when you get hot? You're angry and you want to take a stand on this. So the same thing is in English, what you don't know won't hurt you, because you won't get hot, if you don't know what it is. But if you know what it is you may get hot, see it's both the same. 

But if you translate it, what you don't know won't hurt you, into the German, they say what in the world are they talking about. They would say, 'what do you mean it won't hurt you?' They won't get it. I mean a linguist might, he would say, well you have to do a little transposing in your mind here and then it means it can't hurt you or make you upset or angry if you don't know it. Therefore Germans say it doesn't make you hot. 'Oh, it doesn't make you hot, now I understand.' Because as little children they learn, what you don't know won't make you hot and we learn what you don't know won't hurt you. 

But you can't translate the same words can you. Why is it that these tens of thousands of people that write me emails can't get that through their heads, but they can't. I mean God bless them, but they can't get it through their heads. The thing is, these people that write these damnable heresies and preach lectures on them, they can't get it through their head either. Now I'm going to talk about this a little bit because it's a very important point. 

In my Bible, which has a lot of great features (it's a Nelson King James Bible), all of this sacrifices and offerings you would not and so forth, it's all in small caps. They do that throughout the whole New Testament, any quotation from the Old Testament is in small caps. So you instantly know when you are coming to a quotation from the Old Testament. That's great I love it when they do that stuff.

So this is from the Old Testament. We know from the New Testament that they inserted "sacrifices for sin" and "offering for sin," they put in the word sacrifices and the word offering. Because that is what it means, that's what it is.

Now the least they should have done in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is put, He was made to be a sin and then in italics offering.  But it should have been there, so that everyone knew that that is understood, but no they left it out.  They left it out and look what happens, we now have a damnable doctrine based on an erroneous and spurious Scripture. Isn't that the problem with many false doctrines. This thing of eternal hell.  HELL?

Mat 5:22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

That's not hell, it's Gehenna. Gehenna is a geographical location of a place on a map. It's not a hell. But it's translated that way, so you get this whole doctrine. People quote that Scripture to prove that there is "hell fire." They quote that Scripture and it's an erroneous Scripture. 

Now these people wrote this damnable doctrine and they know that is wrong. Why is it they can't see this? They don't want to. This is become an idol of the heart. When you worship a god, you will not knock it's nose off, you will polish it. You will not knock it off and woe be to anybody else that does. Well I'm in the business of knocking noses off of spiritual idols. I would say I do that for a living, but I don't make any money. I do that for gratis, okay. 

Here is what is so interesting about this. Even the publishers, these are not the translators, the publishers knew that this was a quotation from the Old Testament. That's why they put it in small caps, they knew that. Well if they knew that, don't you suspect the translators knew this too? Well, yes they did.

Now it's true, sometimes New Testament writers paraphrase something from the Old Testament. Where it says, didn't David say and then they kind of paraphrase what he said, they didn't say it word for word. But notice this one and this is the only place where this is, you can't find these words in any other Old Testament Scripture, it's only found here.

Psa 40:6  Sacrifice and offering you did not desire; mine ears have you opened: burnt offering and sin offering have you not required.

What? "sin offering" did you notice that there is no italics? There is no italics there, it is "sin - offering" two words with no italics. That was translated from one Hebrew word. Over in Hebrews we have that very same quotation. Does the word offering belong there? Yes it does. 

So does the New Testament show that 'sin,' should be 'sin offering?' Absolutely. Do the translators even put it in, allbeit in italics? Yes they do. Does the quotation, where it comes from in the Old Testament, have it in the original without italics, meaning it is part of the translation? Yes they do. So is Coy's statement to say that sin - hamartia, is just conjecture to say it should be sin offering? No it is not conjecture, we just proved it. 

What I'm saying, I'm proving a different point now. I'm not trying to prove that He was a sin offering. What I'm trying to prove now is that Coy says that it is conjecture to say that the word hamartia (G266) which means sin, is everywhere in the New Testament translated sin, not sin offering and to say that to be anywhere translated sin offering is conjecture. Well I just showed you where the word for sin in Hebrews 10:6 and 10:8 (which is in the New Testament), where you have sacrifice and offering it is in italics and they did put it in there. So what I am saying is the translators did know that that meant sin offering and sacrifices for sin and not sin.

Does any one believe that the subject of verses 2 through 18 of Hebrews 10 is talking about, burnt and sin? Are these subject burnt and sin, that we are talking about? Does any one of these verses have for it's subject, burnt and sin? 

Hebrews 10:
Verse 2 - offered
Verse 3 - sacrifices
Verse 4 - blood of bulls and goats.  What's that?  Offerings and sacrifices, right.
Verse 5 - sacrifice and offering
Verse 6 - burnt offerings and sacrifices
Verse 8 - Sacrifice and offering, burnt offerings and offerings for sin
Verse 10 - the offering
Verse 11 - offering, sacrifices
Verse 12 - offered one sacrifice for sins
Verse 14 - one offering
Verse 18 - offering for sin

What is the subject of these verses, burnt and sin or offerings? The subject is offerings, sin offerings and burnt offerings, not burnt and sin. OFFERINGS, the subject is offerings. 

It is not saying, but with burnt offerings and 'sin' you have no pleasure. Well it goes without stating that God has no pleasure in sin. Why would you lump sin with burnt offerings? Sin doesn't lump with burnt offerings. If you get rid of sin, you've gotten rid of burnt offering, you don't need burnt offering if there is no sin. 

The subject is burnt offerings and sin offerings. That is contrasted with these verses that we find in the same chapter. All of the burnt offerings and sin offerings, many of them according to the law in the Old Testament are being contrasted. It's a quotation from the Old Testament, burnt offerings, sin offerings, offerings, offerings... and then it says;

Heb 10:9  Then said He, Lo, I come to do Your will, O God. He takes away the first, that He may establish the second.

What's He talking about?  He's talking about the first covenant and now He is going to establish the second covenant. The first covenant had all these offerings; sin offerings, burnt offerings and so on. It's being contrasted now with the new.

Heb 10:10  By the which will (the new, the second covenant) we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

All these many offering and many sacrifices, over and over, year after year, in the old. The first contrasted to what came in the second, which is the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Heb 10:12  But this Man (Jesus), after He had offered one sacrifice for sins (no italics there) forever, sat down on the right hand of God;

So that's what it's talking about "sacrifice for sin." 

Heb 10:14  For by one offering...

Heb 10:18  Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.

So to say that the word when it stands by itself always means sin and it's just conjecture to say that it means sin offering, is unscriptural nonsense. We have just proved it by the very context, that it means offering and even the translators did use the word offering. You say, 'Ah, but it's in italics.' It doesn't matter, they knew it belonged there that's why they put it there. They had the sense in this case, to know it is quoted from the Old Testament, where it is not in italics. It is part of the definition of sin. 

So I have these proofs here.
1)  The translators did insert the words there. They knew it belonged there.
2)  Christ's interest was not in the subject of sin, but in offerings. He is not talking about burnt offerings and sin, but burnt offerings and sin offerings. 
3)  The phrase "which are offered by the law' verse 8. If that word sin should stand by itself (like Coy says, that this word always stands by itself, it's nowhere else and it is conjecture to say sin offering), then you're telling me sin was offered by the law. You see that? There is always more than one way to skin a cat, right. 

Heb 10:8  Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin you would not, neither have pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;

Now if you say, sin needs to stand by itself, it's not sin offering. Now this is all hinging on that word that is going to make Jesus Christ to be sin, come hell or high water no matter how we have to twist the Scriptures or have no Scriptures, it says, "which are offered by the law." Now I'll give you a hundred dollars right here and now (even if I have to borrow it from my wife to do it), that you will not find a Scripture under the law anywhere where they offered sin. Am I going to fast for anyone? 

Where or why would God ever have people offer sin? Can you not see how foolish and stupid this is? I mean we're not even in spiritual sand pile, let alone kindergarten. To think that they offered God sin, no they offered Him a sin o-f-f-e-r-i-n-g. But if you take out that word offering in verse 8, you've got to say that according to the law they offered God sin, right. Can you see any other way around it? It's sin offering, it has to be sin offering. It makes a farce out of God and the law if you say they offered, sin. They did not offer sin.

The Emphatic Diagott has that He was made "a sin offering."

Concordant has "sin offering."

The New International Version has it as a footnote, "to be a sin offering."

Williams Translation has it "sin offering."

The same is true with Romans 8, as some might say that there is a problem with this.
 
I'm just covering these because sure enough someone will come back and say, 'well, Ray didn't this or Ray didn't that.' So I'm just trying to cover these things and head it off at the pass, that's all. It's all foolishness. Anything and everything that anybody will ever come up with to suggest that Jesus Christ was indeed the personification of sin, is going to be stupid blasphemous foolishness, anything. So the more they go the deeper they will dig themselves into this black pit.

Rom 8:3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness...

Likeness means similar, He did not come in sin flesh or He did not come in flesh of sin. It says "likeness," it does not mean the same as, it means similar. There are similarities between Christ and His physical body and us and our physical body. But the fact that we are sinful and He is not, is not one of them, that's where we differ grossly - hugely. 

Continue v. 3  ...God sending His own Son in the likeness (similarity) of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

I mean that just sticks out like a sore thumb. What in the world kind of a translation is that? What does that mean "and for sin"? It's meaningless "and for sin." Sometimes these margins are dead on, this one says, on account of sin. So, He sent His Son for a sin offering, that's how He condemned sin in the flesh. What did we just read it was that was used to condemn sin... I mean all of these Scripture is got to fit together.

[Kat]

PART 2 - Page 2


Heb 10:10  By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

What was offered for sin? "The body of Jesus Christ." Rom 8:3 "...God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh..." sending His Son in "the body of Jesus Christ" for what? Well we just read it in Hebrews, a sin offering, an offering for sin. It should be an offering for sin. 

Williams Translation has, "an offering for sin."

American Standard, "to be a sin offering."

Revised Standard Version, "to be a sin offering."

New American Bible, "to be a sin offering."

New English Bible, "to be a sacrifice for sin."

New American Standard Version, "to be a sin offering."

New International Version has it in their footnote, "to be a sin offering."

Experts on language and translating:

William Black - F.F. Bruce - Adam Clark - William Newell - J.C. Waninger and a host of others. They all agree that this verse also should be translated sin offering. "For sin," I mean it tells you nothing, the word is sin offering.


                           JESUS CHRIST WAS OUR PASSOVER

What was the Passover? It was a sin offering. So that's what Christ was made, He was made a sin offering. He was not made sin. 

There are some points that I want to get to, because I listened to that whole tape from beginning to end, it was a horrendous thing to have to listen to. 

We did talk last week about how much your sin is worth as far as dollars go. Our sin being like so many promissory notes or debts. Christ took all these IOUs, all these sins and said I'll pay the debt. But the fact that He took all of those IOUs does that make Him guilty of those sins? Come on, of course not. He is going to pay them for us. Show me a Scripture that says Christ died for His own sin, where does it say that? 

I was out to lunch with Bob and he said, 'if you throw a sack of potatoes over his shoulder does that make him a potato?' You know Christ says, He will carry our sin on His shoulders, that doesn't make Him sin anymore than a man who throws a sack of potatoes on his shoulder and it turns a man into a potato. This is nonsense.  But when you have an idol of the heart you become so stupid, so foolish it is just pathetic.

In Hebrews 9, with this one verse alone, I just don't see any way around it.

Heb 9:14  How much more shall the blood of Christ...

"The blood of Christ" which they say was sin, they say His blood was sin, His flesh was sin, His bone was sin, His whole body was sin. I don't know how many times he said on the tape, when He was born of a woman, when He was conceived, when he took on flesh and blood He became sin. 

v. 14 ... who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

It says "without spot," without blemish. Would you say that a person that is the very personification of sin, is without blemish, is spotless? 

When they offered the Passover lamb, it was supposed to be a lamb without spot. That means no blemishes, it could not have a broken leg or a marred up face where a wolf attacked it, could not have it's fur falling out with bald spots or lesions or diseases. It had to be without spot. Are we so spiritually stupid that we think that the Passover lamb which was an animal which only symbolically represented the Lamb of God. That it had to be without spot, represents the real Passover Lamb, could be the personification of sin itself. 

(Gordon comments, 'the hole gets deeper') You're right, the hole does get deeper. This really is dirty religion, touch not the unclean thing (2 Cor. 6:17). 

You don't have to be a spiritual genius to know that when they killed those animals and they had to be flawless, it represented the 'real' sacrifice. These whole couple chapters here in Hebrews is talking about how they killed these animals as a sacrifice for your sin. He says, 'they couldn't take away your sin, because if it could take away your sin they wouldn't have to keep sacrificing them.' 

Do you know for hundreds of years, centuries and centuries, Israel killed a lamb or a goat every morning and evening, morning and evening... Now they had different sacrifices, but I mean an animal, every morning and evening, week after week, month after month, year after year, century after century. They did that to remind themselves of what they are - sinners. Not sin, sinners. Are we so stupid as to think that all those animals (they had to hand pick them all), they had to be without spot, without blemish, without defect, without disease, without broken bones, they had to be as pristine as possible. Yet the real sacrifice, Jesus Christ, could be the very personification of sin? I mean it just grates on your very spirit to think of anything that evil. Yet they teach this with pride and arrogance I might add.


                              HE WAS A SACRIFICE FOR OUR SINS

Heb 7:27  Who needs not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice (remember every morning and evening), first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this He did once, when He offered up Himself.

When did Christ offer Himself up for His own sins first? Come on, if He had had to offer Himself up for His own sins, okay there is one dead sacrifice, now who is going to sacrifice himself for us? He took care of His, so where is our sins going to be taken care of? Nowhere does it even hint that Christ paid for His own sin when He sacrificed Himself.

1Cor 15:3  ...Christ died for OUR  sins according to the Scriptures;

Gal 1:4   Who gave Himself for OUR sins...

Heb 1:3  ...when he had by Himself purged OUR sins...
       
Well now we are talking about "purged." If He was sin, didn't He need to purge Himself too then? It doesn't saying anything about that.

1Peter 2:24  Who His own self bare OUR sins in His own body on the tree...

That's how He did it, "His body." The body was the offering. Christ did not sacrifice a carnal mind for our sins, He sacrificed His body. We are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus (Heb. 10:10).

1John 2:2  And He is the propitiation for OUR sins... (Not His own.)

1John 4:10  Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for OUR sins.

1 John 3:5  And you know that He was manifested to take away OUR sins

'Yea, but His own too.' Well read the next part of the verse.

1 John 3:5...and in Him IS NO SIN.

Does that remove any doubt? You say, 'well He did die to take care of His own sin, it just isn't mentioned.' No. For we "know that He manifested to take away our sins and in Him is no sin."

Rev 1:5  ...Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from OUR sins...

Remember I said there is more than one way to skin a cat. How did He wash us from our sins? In His own blood! Think about that. What does Coy say the blood of Jesus Christ is? Sin. Jesus Christ washed our sins in His sin? How deep is that pit now? Can't even see the bottom anymore. He washed our sins in His sin? I don't think so, but in His blood!


               THE BODY DOES NOT SIN - THE CARNAL MIND SINS

Their thing is that the human body is sin, because we; eat too much, lust after sex, we're lazy and we can't keep the body moving, and all these things. The body is sin. No, the body doesn't motivate any of those wrong doings, the carnal mind does, the spiritual part of man. My hand has never sinned. But my mind has told my hand to do things that would make the mind feel satiated. 

Listen, the body really can't feel or enjoy anything. You think, 'did you ever have a good backrub.' You say, 'well what do you mean that the body can't feel or have a good time with things or have a good backrub?' Wait a minute, I'll tell you if you think the body can feel a good backrub, well let's sedate you and someone will give you a backrub and then when we wake you up and we are going to ask you how it felt and how long was their back rubbed, okay. Can your back feel a backrub? No. 

Can your tongue taste good food? No, it can only send the signal to the brain, that's all it can do. When you're hot and you have a fan blowing, you say, 'oh my body feels so good?' No, your mind feels good. Your body sends the signal to your mind, so that your mind feels good. Your mind really doesn't care at all what your body feels, it just doesn't care. Only if it sends a bad signal, so your mind says don't touch that hot stove, why? Because the fingers will burn? No, because it will send a signal to the brain that it burns. It's the brain that burns, it's the brain that feels the pain. It's the carnal mind that sins. The human body is incapable of sinning. How stupid can you get? The body cannot sin!

Paul says don't let your body be used as the members for sin (Rom. 6:13). Where does that sin come from? The brain. The brain can lust after a woman to fornicate with her for the pleasure. You say, 'for the physical pleasure.' It is not physical pleasure, it's in the brain. You can only have an orgasm in your brain. You can only taste good food in your brain. If you sedate the brain, you can put the best chocolate on your tongue and you won't taste a thing. Is this difficult?

Viviane (Ray's daughter) do you understand what I'm saying about that, that you can't taste chocolate on your tongue, that it's in your brain? (Answer) 'yeah.' There's my daughter, she's not even out of school yet and she understands that. Why can't these people understand that?   

The body does not sin, it is not sin. Inanimate things do not sin, can not sin. He says when you become flesh and blood you become sin. Excuse me, my cats are flesh and blood and they don't sin. They don't know the meaning of the word sin, they do what they do by circumstances, by stimuli, by heredity and by instinct. They don't know how to sin, animals don't sin. Animals are flesh and blood and they don't sin. 

The human body does not of itself sin, neither is it sin. It's a Scriptural heresy to suggest such foolishness. Jesus Christ did not become sin when He became flesh and blood.

It says in the Psalms that we are fearfully, awesomely and wonderfully made.

Psa 139:14  I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made...

So He washed us in His own blood. You can't wash away sin with sin, His blood was not sin.

It plainly says in Heb. 10 that if anybody says that...

Heb 10:26  For if we sin willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sins,
v. 27  But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
v. 28  He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

My wife and I were watching the news yesterday and this guy was just released from prison. He contracted to have someone sell drugs for him and he contracted to have his wife murdered. He was found guilty and the judge gave him twelve months... it's just unbelievable. Just twelve months, he is a free man today and his wife is afraid, I would be too. I mean when you contract to have someone murdered and it is as good as done. It is now in someone else's hands and it doesn't matter if you pull the trigger yourself or you gave somebody else the gun and said here is ten thousand dollars to pull the trigger, you're the murderer. Twelve months is what he got, twelve months. 

To say that the human body, because it is flesh and blood is sin, that's nonsense, it's total unscriptural foolishness, there's nothing sin about the human body. If the human body is not perverted by outside evils it functions very beautifully. 

My wife did not have RSD until they operated on her carpal tunnel. That was in basic surgery, then some how it screwed up or whatever and so now she has this RSD thing now. But when your body functions good... my body is not functioning so good right now either. But I know Scripturally that God uses physical ailments and pain, to humble us. So I'm okay with it, I mean I complain like everybody else, but I don't spiritually complain to God and say oh woe is me, why have you done this to me. I know why He has done that, I may not like it, but I know why. At least I have a reason why, that is better than a lot of people who don't have a reason why and it frustrates them. 

This is an interesting point here. How could Jesus be made sin, who knew no sin? I mean the very verse that they use to say that Christ was made sin, the very next words says "who knew no sin."

Coy says that is only a seeming contradiction, of course he never really explains how it is only seeming and not literal. No that is not a seeming contradiction, if indeed 2 Corinthians 5: 21 "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin..." If that is a correct translation, then that is one giant contradiction. Those two phrases, "made...sin," "who knew no sin" are absolutely total contradictions and they can not coexist in the real world, they can not.

Concordant has; 
2Cor 5:21 For the One not knowing sin, He makes to be a sin offering for our sakes that we may be becoming God's righteousness in Him."

"He Makes" it's the aorist tense, not past tense "to be a sin offering." Of course their thing is that He was made sin when He was conceived. Well then He could hardly "makes Him" many years later, if He was already at His conception.

So we have these phrases from the Scriptures;

Was made sin... 2 Cor 5:21 who knew no sin

Was made sin... 1 John 3:5 ...and in Him is no sin.

Was made sin... Heb 4:15 ...yet without sin.

Was made sin... 1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin...

Those are contradictions. The phrase "was made sin" does not fit any of those other Scriptures, it contradicts all of them. 

[Kat]

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.

[Kat]

bump