Featured Continued from dead tulip

Sure....you are wrong to think that the guilt offering was paying for sins (Scripture even denounces this error....sins were "passed over" until the time of the New Covenant. There were not paid.)

You have adopted a philosophy that was popular at one time, but now primarily exists within reformed RCC doctrine. This is why it is increasingly being questioned by Calvinists.

People will always hold it, not because of the Bible but because of tradition.

 

It does within the ANE pagan religions. But not with God. Read what the Bible says about the guilt offering.

 

It was. And that is what Philip explained.

My point is that Philip was not teaching reformed RCC. You are.

You think you are expounding on Scripture by adding to it. But in reality Scripture interprets Scripture.

God is not dependent on you to explain what He meant.

 

That is what the pagan religions believed. They sacrificed to appease the gods, to pay for their sins, to please their deities.

I suppose that is how the idea entered your faith (through the RCC).

But that is far from what the Bible states. It is just what you believe it teaches.

But what if the Bible teaches what it states? Then your theories crumble.

 

He was not expounding upon Scripture. He was explaining how the text had been fulfilled.

We have that explanation in the NT.