Christianity and blood sacrifice

[Laureate]

Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in blood sacrifice -- that is, to not believe that God requires or ever required blood sacrifice to forgive sins? The Old Testament prophets, in contradiction to the Jewish sacrificial system, stated that God does not require blood sacrifice. Jeremiah has God stating it directly, and Jesus affirms and repeats this. Thus, I contend that the OT blood sacrifices were not from God but were influenced by the pagan religions.

Accordingly, my view of the Atonement encompasses the early church doctrines: Ransom/Christus Victor/Recapitulation. I reject all Western, Latin views of the atonement.

When Alôhâyîm said He did not require this (blood sacrifice), He is placing an emphasis to the Spiritual ramifications of the same passages pertaining to blood sacrifice.

While they were eager to fulfill the Milk/Natural aspects of the Torah, they did not seek the Meat/Spiritual aspects of the Torah, in essence, He was not speaking to them Carnaly, but Spiritually.

The Blood Sacrifice in the Natural sense was a means of demonstration there are grave consequences for our actions, and though we may find ourselves taking that lightly, there are those whose lives are at stake counting on us to not sin, and perpetuate the payment of death.

We are the many members of the body of one who paid the price for us all, and yet we continue to crucify him every time someone sins, and we can see this is still on going as long as we can see someone die.

 

[Der Alte]

Yes. Old Testament blood sacrifices were of pagan origin, like many of the traditions of ancient Judaism that Jesus Christ freed us from. However, He also chose blood sacrifice - of Himself - as the means by which to make salvation available to us.

Nonsense. I have already addressed the out-of-context proof texts that a lot of folks think prove that God did not command animal sacrifices, in [Post #42] this thread. In context they don't say what you think they do.
If God did not command animal sacrifices why didn't He strike down the people who supposedly put all those passages in the OT? We read multiple times where God punished Israelites who broke His laws and statutes. There are multiple verses in both testaments referring to animal sacrifices but NOT one verse where God punished anyone for putting those verses in the Bible.

Isaiah 55:11
(11) So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.​

If God did not command animal sacrifices how could He stand by and do nothing when sacrificing an animal was written into the birth narrative of God's Son? How could God let that remain in His word for 2000 years +/-?

Luke 2:11-12
(11) For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
(12) And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
...
Luke 2:21-24
(21) And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb.
(22) And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;
(23) (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord; )
(24) And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons.​

 

[JAYPT]

Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in blood sacrifice -- that is, to not believe that God requires or ever required blood sacrifice to forgive sins? The Old Testament prophets, in contradiction to the Jewish sacrificial system, stated that God does not require blood sacrifice. Jeremiah has God stating it directly, and Jesus affirms and repeats this. Thus, I contend that the OT blood sacrifices were not from God but were influenced by the pagan religions.

Accordingly, my view of the Atonement encompasses the early church doctrines: Ransom/Christus Victor/Recapitulation. I reject all Western, Latin views of the atonement.

Its a blood economy. Im not sure where you're getting this info from.

 

[Alithis]

Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in blood sacrifice -- that is, to not believe that God requires or ever required blood sacrifice to forgive sins? The Old Testament prophets, in contradiction to the Jewish sacrificial system, stated that God does not require blood sacrifice. Jeremiah has God stating it directly, and Jesus affirms and repeats this. Thus, I contend that the OT blood sacrifices were not from God but were influenced by the pagan religions.

Accordingly, my view of the Atonement encompasses the early church doctrines: Ransom/Christus Victor/Recapitulation. I reject all Western, Latin views of the atonement.

Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins....

 

[CelticRebel]

Not true.

The NT shows bishops, presbyters (elders), and deacons, as well as minor ministers: "helps and administration" in ST. Paul's words.

The only Marian doctrine I discuss on line is the truth that her Son is indeed fully God and fully man in one and the same Person.

This is a new idea to many Christians, odd to say.

In the NT, the words elder, presbyter, overseer, bishop, pastor were synonyms -- they were one and the same office. Thus, there is no such thing as a monarchial bishop, or a bishop as a third office in distinction from pastor, in the NT. That is a fact. So, again, I would rather go by the NT way of doing things than by a tradition that developed in the 2nd century.

 

[CelticRebel]

Excellent observation.

I agree with almost everything you said except “I contend that the OT blood sacrifices were not from God, but were influenced by the pagan religions”.

God apparently forgave Gentiles prior to the cross without animal sacrifices, so sacrifices were not to get or allow God to forgive people. God also forgave a poor Jewish person of minor (unintentional) sins, who correctly offered a bag of flour (Lev.5) so there was no blood sacrifice with that.

I also agree with your: “rejecting all Western, Latin views of the atonement” but those are only the ones you know about. They all have huge issues.

I do not know how you feel about “eating meat”, but the priests always humanely killed the animals and some after cooking them on the altar were eaten especially with the Fellowship Sacrifices.

Foe me to explain my understanding of atonement takes lots of words and I can only give you the Bible to reference, but just on the “blood” concept:

Most atonement theories are really making God out to be blood thirsty, having to have innocent blood to forgive or at least control His anger.

Satan being appeased or paid off by Christ’s blood, makes God to look weak and satan to be on some kind of plane with God. Many Christians believed in the 2nd and 3rd century that there was a war going on in heaven with satan taking people captive and God paying a “ransom” to get them released. Yet, God can just as easily and safely take anything away from satan He wants, without paying a ransom, so it would actually be wrong for God to pay satan off.

In the Old Testament water and blood was used to outwardly cleanse stuff; to set these people or objects apart from others and make them holy. It was ritualistic, but helped the people visualize what was happening spiritually and what will happen with Christ, but the blood of animals was never to be taken internally, so the outside could be made holy but inwardly it was carnal.

Christ come along and says: John 6: 53 Jesus said to them,… “54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.

Now before you like most others in John 6 run off in discuss, understand what Christ is saying. Read all of at least 1 Cor. 11 for just three verse says: 24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

Paul uses the word bread and cup showing it is not actual flesh and blood, but it should be treated as Christ’s flesh and blood.

God is not the blood thirsty one, but I am for I want eternal life. I do not literally drink Christ’s blood but the cup (wine) and I do literally feel that wine representing Christ’s blood flowing down my throat and over my heart cleansing me inwardly.

From Christ’s pray in the Garden and God’s loving empathy for Christ tells us they personally wanted His blood to remain in His veins, but I need to know it left His body and is available to wash me (make me Holy) both inwardly and outwardly. It is truly sad and horrible what I require and it is certainly nothing I could ask of God and Christ, but Christ freely gave it to me to help me to just feel and know I am cleansed.

Remembering the cross is not a happy moment for me and I wish we did not use it as jewelry. The only thing that keeps me standing when thinking about the cross is the greatest show of Love.

That is just a little about the blood let me know if you really want to know more about atonement.

Thank you for sharing all of that; it was good. Yes, please share more and as much as you will.

 

[CelticRebel]

I know of those who agree with me on this. I have found out about them in recent years. Had I not, I don't believe I could have remained a Christian. Regarding most of the replies here, if these were the only views on the subject, I don't think I could remain Christian. Blood-letting religion, as a means of obtaining right standing, is an offense to God.

 

[misput]

I know of those who agree with me on this. I have found out about them in recent years. Had I not, I don't believe I could have remained a Christian. Regarding most of the replies here, if these were the only views on the subject, I don't think I could remain Christian. Blood-letting religion, as a means of obtaining right standing, is an offense to God.

Blood is representative of life, Genesis 9:4 makes this very clear but to use this to say God never required a blood sacrifice is a huge mistake, He used it to its literal conclusion, Himself in Christ dying on the cross for our sins. So that we might learn that giving up our life for others is what He desires, its called love or in Hebrew, I give. The idea is stated in the scripture as
Ro 12:1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. We can do this in as small a way as giving someone a drink of water in His name, that is taking time out of our life/blood to give to someone else or in as large a way as Christ when a soldier on the battle field throws himself on a grenade to save his friends.

Just for fun, can you explain why God did not accept the leaf aprons of Adam and Eve but made them clothing of animal skins?

 

[Mathetes66]

Great point jimd! God Himself instituted from the very beginning when mankind FIRST SINNED animal sacrifice & the shedding of blood necessary for covering sin & for covering for our shame & the guilt of our shame. This was what God instituted not pagans & God didn't find it offensive if offered in the right way! He only became offensive when it wasn't offered in the right way with the right heart attitude.

The heavenly Father was always looking forward to the once for all blood sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, that would satisfy His holy requirements of the Law & be able to make atonement once--for all time--to redeem & save anyone who repented & put their trust in Christ to save them.

This wasn't something that just happened but was foreordained & planned to happen:

Rev 13:5-8 NIV The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words & blasphemies & to exercise its authority for forty-two months. It opened its mouth to blaspheme God & to slander His name & His dwelling place & those who live in heaven. It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people & to conquer them.

And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language & nation. All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the LAMB'S book of life, THE LAMB WAS WAS SLAIN FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD.

I Peter 1:13-25 NIV Therefore, with minds that are alert & fully sober, set your hope on the grace to be brought to you when Jesus Christ is revealed at His coming. As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as He who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: “Be holy, because I am holy.”

17Since you call on a Father who judges each person’s work impartially, live out your time as foreigners here in reverent fear. For YOU KNOW that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were REDEEMED from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, BUT WITH THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST, A LAMB WITHOUT BLEMISH OR DEFECT.

HE WAS CHOSEN BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21Through Him you believe in God, who raised Him from the dead & glorified Him & so your faith & hope are in God.

22Now that you have purified yourselves by obeying the truth so that you have sincere love for each other, love one another deeply, from the heart. For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living & enduring word of God. AND THIS IS THE WORD THAT WAS PREACHED TO YOU.

This didn't catch God unawares. It was purposed to happen even BEFORE the creation of the universe. Jesus was specifically sent for this purpose. And as Peter said above, this is the WORD that was preached to you, concerning the foreordained plan of God in the gospel, including the precious blood of Christ that redeemed us. That is the gospel message & to deny that or try and remove that will bring one to believing in a different jesus & a different gospel message & by a different spirit, not the Holy Spirit.

Rev 5:6-12 Then I saw A LAMB, LOOKING AS IF IT HAD BEEN SLAIN, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures & the elders. The Lamb had seven horns & seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth. He went & took the scroll from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne.

8And when He had taken it, the four living creatures & the 24 elders fell down before THE LAMB. Each one had a harp & they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. 9And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll & to open its seals, BECAUSE YOU WERE SLAIN & WITH YOUR BLOOD YOU PURCHASED FOR GOD PERSONS FROM EVERY TRIBE & LANGUAGE & PEOPLE & NATION. You have MADE THEM to be a kingdom & priests to serve our God & they will reign on the earth.”

11Then I looked & heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, & ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne & the living creatures & the elders. In a LOUD VOICE they were saying: “Worthy is THE LAMB WHO WAS SLAIN, to receive power &wealth & wisdom & strength & honor & glory & praise!”

As Peter said without FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, you will not be one of the purchased nor have your name written in the LAMB'S book of life. The shed blood of Christ that atones & purchases IS what our faith is placed in, this LAMB OF GOD, that takes away the sin of the world. That is the one true gospel message.

The picture of animal sacrifice was foreshadowing the once for all sacrifice of Christ on the cross & his shedding of blood to establish the New Covenant. Reading the book of Hebrews is a great help in seeing why God had all things in the Old Covenant done in precisely a certain way. All these things in the temporary tabernacle & temple worship was picturing what Christ would do in fulfilling these things ONCE FOR ALL.

Christ is the one who through His sacrifice & blood had the curtain torn in two between the holy place & the holy of holies, being the ONLY BLOOD now needed to allow us to enter into the very holy of holies. Only the high priest could do that under the Old Covenant & only ONCE A YEAR & not WITHOUT BLOOD. Otherwise he would die. That is why they tied a rope around his ankle, in case his presentation wasn't done in the holy way God prescribed.

A man touched the side of the ark instead of carrying it with the poles as God described & died. King David forgot & felt bad but God said I will be treated as holy. Without the shedding of blood you are not forgiven. There are some sacrifices in the OT that didn't require blood but only in certain circumstances but everything else required blood. That is why the Scripture says 'almost' at the beginning of that verse but then concludes that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.

This is because on the day of atonement, done only once a year, the sins of the whole nation were covered by the sprinkled blood on the mercy seat of the ark, picturing God's mercy on all who put their faith in the blood of the Lamb, slain from the creation of the world.

 

[eleos1954]

Is it possible to be a Christian and not believe in blood sacrifice -- that is, to not believe that God requires or ever required blood sacrifice to forgive sins? The Old Testament prophets, in contradiction to the Jewish sacrificial system, stated that God does not require blood sacrifice. Jeremiah has God stating it directly, and Jesus affirms and repeats this. Thus, I contend that the OT blood sacrifices were not from God but were influenced by the pagan religions.

Accordingly, my view of the Atonement encompasses the early church doctrines: Ransom/Christus Victor/Recapitulation. I reject all Western, Latin views of the atonement.

****

Not from pagan religions.

God told Moses to build a sanctuary. Why?

“Let them make Me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them” (Exodus 25:8).

Answer: The Lord told Moses to build a sanctuary—a special building that would serve as a dwelling place for the God of heaven.

What did God expect His people to learn from the sanctuary?

“Your way, O God, is in the sanctuary; who is so great a God as our God?” (Psalm 77:13).

Answer: God’s way, the plan of salvation, is revealed in the earthly sanctuary. The Bible teaches that everything in the sanctuary—the dwelling, furniture, and services—are symbols of something Jesus did in saving us. This means we can fully comprehend the plan of salvation as we fully understand the symbolism connected with the sanctuary.

From what source did Moses obtain the blueprints for the sanctuary? Of what was the building a copy?

“Now this is the main point of the things we are saying: We have such a High Priest (Jesus), who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a Minister of the sanctuary and of the true tabernacle which the Lord erected, and not man. ... There are priests ... who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, as Moses was divinely instructed when he was about to make the tabernacle. For He said, ‘See that you make all things according to the pattern shown you on the mountain’ ” (Hebrews 8:1, 2, 4, 5).

Answer: God Himself gave Moses the sanctuary’s construction specifications. The building was a copy of the original sanctuary that is in heaven.

 

[hedrick]

Nonsense. I have already addressed the out-of-context proof texts that a lot of folks think prove that God did not command animal sacrifices, in [Post #42] this thread. In context they don't say what you think they do.

I disagree with your exegesis of Ps 51. Vs 16 is pretty categorical. I'd suggest to you that sacrifices are essentially sacraments. They're a way of making visible something on the spiritual level: repentance and forgiveness. Vs 16 - 17 tells us that God doesn't need sacrifice. What he wants is repentance. However when someone is truly repentant, sacrifice is still useful as a way of making their repentance visible. Thus with someone who has the right attitude, God will accept sacrifice, as in vs 18.

For the current purposes I'm assuming vs 18 is part of the original. If it's not it changes the exegesis of this psalm, but not my overall concept of sacrifice. I wouldn't dismiss it as a pagan thing. It's a major theme in both OT and NT. I just don't think it's necessary for forgiveness.

 

[section9+1]

Sin requires death. Blood is life and the spilling of it is death. Of course God doesn't want blood spilled because he doesn't want sin. He would much rather people didn't sin and skip the necessity of blood and death. But since they do, a blood sacrifice becomes a reluctant necessity. To deny the blood requirement is to destroy the foundation of Christianity. Grace comes through blood. No blood, no grace.

 

[hedrick]

Sin requires death. Blood is life and the spilling of it is death. Of course God doesn't want blood spilled because he doesn't want sin. He would much rather people didn't sin and skip the necessity of blood and death. But since they do, a blood sacrifice becomes a reluctant necessity. To deny the blood requirement is to destroy the foundation of Christianity. Grace comes through blood. No blood, no grace.

Only if you hold to certain views of the atonement.

 

[section9+1]

The view I hold is to the truth of scripture.

 

[CelticRebel]

For those of you who view god as an angry deity who needs to be appeased by blood-letting, or by killing in any way, maybe you can explain why humans were vegetarians before the flood. Yes, that is true and in the Bible, in case any of you were not aware of it.

 

[CelticRebel]

Just FYI, I consider myself a moderately conservative Christian, definitely not liberal or fundamentalist, but it is very difficult for me to find a church home, with my mixture of conservative and not-so-conservative views. For instance, i believe, in the deity of Jesus, the virgin birth, incarnation, the bodily resurrection of Jesus -- not just his spiritual resurrection. The bodily resurrection is what distinguished Christianity from all other religions, the Moslems and B'ahai even believing in His spiritual resurrection.

On the other hand, my view of hell would get me in trouble in conservative circles, plus my view of the atonement. Add to that women in ministry, and a couple of other views.

 

[hedrick]

Just FYI, I consider myself a moderately conservative Christian, definitely not liberal or fundamentalist, but it is very difficult for me to find a church home, with my mixture of conservative and not-so-conservative views. For instance, i believe, in the deity of Jesus, the virgin birth, incarnation, the bodily resurrection of Jesus -- not just his spiritual resurrection. The bodily resurrection is what distinguished Christianity from all other religions, the Moslems and B'ahai even believing in His spiritual resurrection.

On the other hand, my view of hell would get me in trouble in conservative circles, plus my view of the atonement. Add to that women in ministry, and a couple of other views.

Most mainline churches have a mix of theology. You're not required to reject the Virgin Birth, and certainly not the resurrection.

 

[ewq1938]

For those of you who view god as an angry deity who needs to be appeased by blood-letting, or by killing in any way,

Mat_26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

God wasn't angry but he did require sacrifices to be killed and blood to be shed for the forgiveness of sin. I am glad you remained a Christians but you are a Christian that denies that God wanted and accepted blood sacrifices for sin atonement. That is simply a historical and biblical fact.

maybe you can explain why humans were vegetarians before the flood. Yes, that is true and in the Bible, in case any of you were not aware of it.

No it's not true but most will agree with you but it's irrelevant to sin atonement and blood.

 

[bling]

First of all, the heavenly Father & the Messiah did NOT want His blood to remain in His veins. Christ repeatedly said He was going to suffer, die on a cross, shed His blood to establish the New Covenant IN HIS BLOOD. The Father SENT HIM to be incarnated & die on the cross & needed A BLOOD ATONEMENT MADE ONCE FOR ALL, so that we could have our sins forgiven, could be reconciled to Him, bought back from the slave market of sin with the PRECIOUS blood of Christ.

Thank you for reading my post.

Does the Bible refer to at least two different types of “will”?

Luke 22:42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.”

What “will” is Jesus referring to that is not going to be done?

Jesus always willed to do what the Father wanted, but is there another type of “will” we might refer to as “personal desire”?

James 1: 20 because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.

2 Peter 2:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

Did God/Christ personally desired what they would allow to happen for the benefit of us humans. God’s and Christ’s desire for us is greater than their desire to avoid a huge pain and suffering?

From Christ’s pray in the garden we know he would have preferred “another way” if there had been another way. We need to know this personal desire of Christ and God to better appreciate what they are doing. If you think it was: no big deal, really something Christ was hoping to do, just another day for Christ, and there was no pain for Christ, than you are missing the point.

Christ did not have to nor did He really want to go through the torture humiliation and murder, but out of Love for us did it.

Does a soldier really want to give up his life in battle to save his comrades, but will out of Love for them? He was not happy doing it.

It is NOT truly sad & horrible what we require to have our sins atoned for & to redeem us & reconcile us back to God in FELLOWSHIP, when we repent and believe the gospel. The apostle Peter calls it PRECIOUS BLOOD, not sad & horrible. Christ endured the cross because of the JOY SET BEFORE HIM! He willingly gave up His innocent life to death & shed His blood once for all time, to bring salvation, forgiveness & redemption.

Would it have been better: if people could fulfill their earthly objective without sinning and thus not needing Christ to going to the cross (another way) or would that have taken the pleasure of helping people away from Christ?

What makes Christ’s blood “precious”, if Christ did not value that blood in His veins?

The writers say “endure” and “scorning its shame” suggesting a huge displeasure?

What is this “JOY SET BEFORE HIM”? Some have said to me a few hours on the cross to be ruler over a huge kingdom would be worth it, but is Christ doing this to sit on a huge thrown and be served by millions? That is a carnal desire.

Christ told and showed us what Spiritual leaders are like, living in and through humans serving others. Christ’s ‘joy” comes with completing the human child of God with a way to be fairly/justly/Lovingly disciplined. Going through it with us for the strongest benefit we could obtain. We than can have the indwelling Holy Spirit.

I Pet 1:18,19 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life you inherited from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or spot.

Again what makes it “precious” (Hard to give up)? This is the greatest sacrificial payment God and Christ can make, but it is a huge sacrifice for the payers of the ransom, really not what they “should” have done for such undeserving children.

Hebrews 12:2,3 Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for THE JOY SET BEFORE HIM ENDURED THE CROSS, scorning its shame & sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. CONSIDER HIM, who endured such hostility from sinners, so that you will not grow weary & lose heart.

God did not have to appease the devil in any way. Jesus came to conquer by His suffering, death, burial & resurrection. He has the keys of Hades & death; He overcame death so that we might be set free in the glorious liberty that comes from being continually cleansed by His precious blood.

Death comes after the torture, humiliation and murder of Christ and it is really when the atonement sacrifice stopped, as Jesus said before his death “it is finished”.

Again what I am only talking about is what the Hebrew writer is saying: enduring the cross, scorning the shame, and enduring such hostility from sinners, which is not enjoyable or desired by anyone.

WE are to take up our cross DAILY, denying ourselves & following Him, being crucified with Him, offering up our bodies & lives as a 'LIVING SACRIFICE.'

Every day now around the world, many Christians are spilling their blood in martyrdom because of their faith in Christ, sharing in the fellowship of His sufferings.

Yes, you can be a martyr for the cause, but it is not fun to go through, but it is an honor and privilege and the joy comes with heaven.

But is that what Paul meant when he talked about being crucified with Christ?

What did you experience when you first came to the realization; Christ was tortured, humiliated and murdered because of you did you feel “THE FELLOWSHIP OF HIS SUFFERINGS”? I feel I am to blame for the tragedy and the only way I can live with that fact is the fact the greatest Love is being shown for me at the same time.

Rom 3:25 GOD PRESENTED HIM as an atoning sacrifice THROUGH FAITH IN HIS BLOOD, in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins committed beforehand.

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished... (Rom. 3:25, 1984 NIV)

The cross is foolishness to the nonbeliever, so it takes a lot to show the logic and benefit.

The Crucifixion is described allegorically by Christ, Paul, Peter, John (in Revelations) and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment.

Paul in Ro. 3:25 giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handle the same way “by the cross” there would be no contrast, just a time factor, but Paul said (forgiven) sins prior to the cross where left “unpunished”, but that also means the forgiven “sinner” after the cross were punished.

From Romans 3: 25 Paul tells us: God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. …

Another way of saying this would be “God offers the ransom payment (Christ Crucified and the blood that flowed from Him) to those that have the faith to receive that ransom.

God is not the undeserving kidnapper nor is satan, but the unbeliever is himself is holding back the child of God from the Father, that child that is within every one of us.

Paul goes on to explain:

Ro. 3: 25 …He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished

I do not like the word “unpunished” since the same Greek word also means “undisciplined”.

So prior to the cross repentant forgiven people (saved individuals) could not be fairly and justly disciplined for the rebellious disobedience, but after the cross if we repent (come to our senses and turn to God) we can be fairly and justly disciplined and yet survive.

 

[CelticRebel]

How many of you who profess to believe in the necessity of bloodletting to get right with God, if Jesus had not come yet, would be willing to put a lamb on an altar and slit its throat so that your sins could be forgiven? This is your view of what God is and what he requires, so, to be consistent, you must answer that you would be willing to do such.