Christianity and blood sacrifice
- Thread starter CelticRebel
- Start date
misput
JimD
- Sep 5, 2018
- 1,023
- 382
- 84
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
You bet I would but not to appease Him but because I believe Him and Love Him. Christ made it possible for me to share my money that I may have made raising sheep to be slaughtered with the needy, directly or through the church, same thing. You guys are off on a literal tangent.
Upvote
0
First off: you might next time quote me, so it shows up as an alert to me.
I shorten your to get under 18000
You say: “Christ DID HAVE TO GO THROUGH IT”, so it was a knee jerk reaction for Christ and not something He thought about and decided to do?
So, Christ did not of His own free will decide to go to the cross?
“With out it”, yes we are bad off, but do we deserve better and did Christ have a gun to His head?
Did Christ owe us something, so He had to pay?
Ro. 5: 12 … and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. It did not say: “because Adam sinned”, but “because all sinned”. Ro. 5 takes lots of explaining and needs to be part of another thread.
The prodigal son was described by Christ twice as being dead, so by Christ’s definition of dead, a dead person still can-do stuff, just not righteous, holy and honorable stuff. An enemy of God can still wimp out, give up and surrender to God with God still being his hated enemy, as long as the surrender is willing to accept undeserved pure charity. He might feel he should be tortured to death for previous war crimes, but will accept charity.
I understand God to be outside of time and most likely the creator of time (experiments for the last 100 years have only shown time to be relative), so no real before or after for God. This again needs to be part of another thread. Briefly: God at the end of time would know everything that had happened as unchangeable history the same way we can know history. The fact that you know all the free choices you made yesterday does not mean they were not free will choices and the way God at the end of time knows all free will choices perfectly does not mean they were not free will choices. Since God at the end of time also exists at the beginning of time all historical information (free will choices) can be transferred to God at the beginning of time without causes those choices to cease to be free will choice.
Christ going to the cross was part of history for God at the end of time which could be transferred to God at the beginning of time and given to prophets at some time. If Christ had not gone to the cross, there would be no history of that happening and thus that historic information would not be given to the prophets.
Did Christ’s prophecy concerning Peter’s three denial cause Peter to deny Christ three times?
Christ would have been “perfect” even if He had not gone to the cross???
From Barnes notes: The views of the world have changed, and it is now difficult to divest the "cross" of the associations of honor and glory which the word suggests, so as to appreciate the ideas which encompassed it then. There is a degree of dishonor which we attach to the guillotine, but the ignominy of a death on the cross was greater than that; there is disgrace attached to the block, but the ignominy of the cross was greater than that; there is a much deeper infamy attached to the gallows, but the ignominy of the cross was greater than that. And that word - the cross - which when now proclaimed in the ears of the refined, the intelligent, and even the frivolous, excites an idea of honor, in the ears of the people of Athens, of Corinth, and of Rome, excited deeper disgust than the word "gallows" does with us - for it was regarded as the appropriate punishment of the most infamous of mankind.
Is. 53: He was despised and rejected by mankind a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their face he was despised, and we held him in low esteem. … we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted.
When the 3000 Jews on Pentecost understood they crucified the Messiah they were not happy about giving Christ this honor, glory and joy, so where they wrong to feel a death blow to their hearts?
Was Christ not the suffering Messiah?
It is amazing Christ could focus on the immediate needs of others while enduring huge pain.
“THE WRATH OF ALMIGHTY GOD FOR THE SINS OF THE WHOLE WORLD FELL ON CHRIST” NO
We would have to go over these one by one looking for the most likely alternative interpretation.
If God literally did “forsake Christ”, while on the cross than the prophecy of Psalms 22 is wrong.
Then it is no big deal?
To say: “I could have done something to prevent some tragedy and did not do it” is a lot harder on me than to say: “There was nothing I could have done”.
That is what I have been trying to get across to you???
I did not say: “Christ going through it WITH us” but just repeating what Paul said in that “we are crucified with Him” and this has nothing to do with us “saving ourselves”. You are miss quoting me and setting up a strawman.
“for us” means what? There are many Greek words in this context which we translate with the English word "for." They include peri (which means "about" or "concerning"), dia ("because of" or "on account of"), and by far the most common, huper ("for," "on behalf of," or "for the sake of").
None of these prepositions necessarily invokes the meaning "in the place of." Hence the exact relationship between Christ's death and our salvation is not so clearly conveyed in any of these verses. That Jesus died "on account of" us and our sins is clear, but the Greek words translated "for" do not of themselves spell out a doctrine of Atonement.
We most likely agree Christ went to the cross “because of” us and “because of” our sins and we can see it was to our benefit (for us), but was it “instead of us”, because that would be a unique definition for most of the Greek words used.
If the writers wanted to convey the idea of “instead of” they should have used the Greek word “anti”, which is used one and recorded twice Matt and Mark, but “anti” does not have to mean instead of. Of the 22 times anti is used in the NT only a few would best be defined as instead of (it is use in an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, for a single meal, for the joy set before Him).
It is used concerning atonement in Mark 10:45 …to give His life a ransom for many, but does that mean “instead of”? Christ death on the cross was definitely a literal huge ransom payment which benefited many and was because of many but was it instead of many? A lot depends on who is the kidnapper accepting this huge ransom payment and releasing a child to go to the Kingdom? God is not a undeserving criminal kidnapper and satan might fit the bill but satan is not powerful enough to hold back a child of God if God wants to take the child? Death, sin and evil are intangibles not changing with a payment, so no payment needed.
When you teach the nonbelieving sinner you are not trying to sell them on a doctrine, book, theology or a bunch of rules, but Jesus Christ and Him crucified (the ransom payment). If the nonbeliever accepts the ransom a child enters the Kingdom, but if the nonbeliever refuses the ransom payment a child is kept from going into the Kingdom.
Fully agree, so how were you fairly/justly and Lovingly disciplined for your rebellious disobedience?
We are not talking about the Kingdom, but about Christ’s blood.
The atoning sacrifice was done once and for all.
Atonement itself is a process.
The atonement sacrifice is one time.
Our part in the atonement process continues on.
Did Christ go through that torture, humiliation and murder because of you and your personal sins?
Do you accept any of the blame for what happened to Christ?
Was it wrong for those three thousand on Pentecost to experience a death blow to their heart?
Are you better than those three thousand?
The glory of God/Christ is best seen with Christ going through the whole crucifixion experience, but that is like seeing the glory of Steven at his stoning. The mob going after and stoning Steven, could have given time for other Christians to flee, witness greatness and have a spiritual growth experience, but will they feel “happy”?
Dying for the cause and being crucified with Christ is not the same thing.
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, NIV)
This verse does provide a lot of information about how sins prior to Christ going to the cross were handled.
First off: Paul is giving the extreme contrast between the way sins where handle prior to the cross and after the cross, so if they were actually handled 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. A lack of faith results in the refusal of the ransom payment (Christ crucified).
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” but would use “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.
If you think about the crucifixion, you would realize, at the time Christ was on the cross, God in heaven out of empathy/Love for Christ would be experience an even greater pain than Christ. We as our Love grows and our realization of what we personally caused Christ to go through will feel the death blow to our hearts (Acts 2:37). We will experience the greatest pain we could experience and still live, which is the way God is disciplining us today and for all the right reasons because Loving discipline correctly accepted results in a wondrous relationship with our parent. (We can now comfortably feel justified before God.)
No, God forgives sin 100%, so there is nothing to pay God and if there was than he would not be forgiving all of it. Our humbly accepting God’s forgiveness is hard, because no one likes to take pure charity.
You cannot just go to a Bible dictionary to define how a particular word is used in a particular bible verse. Other translations have “propitiation” (ἱλαστήριον hilastērion is the Greek) translated it: expiation and atonement sacrifices. No one knows for sure what the meaning of ἱλαστήριον hilastērion really should be in a particular verse.
Propitiation makes the problem God’s problem (He cannot associate with sinful man) and must there for punish someone (it does not have to be the sinner himself which is up surd).
We like to talk about punishing the intangible “sin” or God’s wrath toward sin, which cannot be done since it is the sinner who is upsetting God and needs either punishment or disciplining.
Does God have a problem controlling His wrath and needs outside help?
God’s wrath is not there because God has a wrathful nature, but His wrath help us by making sin even worse (Makes God angry) unbelievably huge to the point nothing can done by anyone including Christ to resolve, but God can forgive and we can accept God’s forgiveness.
God is upset with man sinning and will do almost anything to resolve the situation, so in that respect the resolving of the situation will reduce God’s wrath over sinful man and is a kind of propitiation, but it is not God who needs to change in any way (have some personal satisfaction or satisfy some cosmic justice requirement), but man who changes through the atoning sacrifice which improves the relationship.
When your child rebelliously disobeys you and you get angry over it are you looking to be “satisfied” with punishing vengeance or justice?
Do you need something done to forgive your child?
Loving discipline correctly accepted is a great learning experience that will create an even better relationship between parent and child.
Upvote
0
1213
Disciple of Jesus
I think that is good question. I think person remains in his words, when he doesn’t change them and remains in truth.
If anyone listens to my sayings, and doesn't believe, I don't judge him. For I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He who rejects me, and doesn't receive my sayings, has one who judges him. The word that I spoke, the same will judge him in the last day.
John 12:47-48
Before I can continue with this, please show the scripture that says so?
Interesting thing is that Jesus had right to forgive sins before his death. So, obviously death was not necessary for the forgiveness.
The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25
Upvote
0
I've not read through this thread, but wanted to share a couple of articles that make sense - in my mind - of the whole "blood sacrifice" issue (and also - the different line of priesthood that Jesus is from, Melchizedek, who offered bread and wine and not sacrificed animals):
Quote from this article:
Another key foreshadowing of the Eucharist -- the sacrifice and food of the New Covenant -- is the bread and wine offered by the priest Melchizedek. Let's see what this means for our understanding of the Eucharist.
Another key foreshadowing of the Eucharist -- the sacrifice and food of the New Covenant -- is the bread and wine offered by the priest Melchizedek. Let's see what this means for our understanding of the Eucharist.
I'd like to call your attention to the Book of Hebrews. Hebrews, chapter 6 describes how God had made a promise to Abraham and then he changed the promise to an oath. When God swears an oath to Abraham, he makes a covenant. In Genesis 22:18, right after Abraham went to Moriah to sacrifice his firstborn through Sarah, God prevented it and then swore an oath saying, "Surely all the nations of the earth will be blessed through your seed."
The New Testament begins, "This is Jesus Christ, the seed of the son of Abraham, the Son of David." Jesus Christ is the one in and through whom God fulfills that oath he swore to Abraham. Where did he swear it? On Moriah, where the temple was later built and where Christ, the New Temple was later destroyed and rebuilt three days afterwards. It talks about this oath and then it goes on to talk about the priesthood of Melchizedek. In chapter 7, the first ten verses, it describes how Abraham met Melchizedek. It talks about the meaning of his name. He's the king of righteousness, that's what Melchizedek means in Hebrew. He is the King of Salem, which means peace, shalom. He is the priest of God Most High and he blessed Abraham, so he was superior to Abraham. Everything is mentioned about the meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek except one thing, the bread and the wine.
Now we are going to ask a question. Is that because the bread and the wine was the only thing that was unimportant about Melchizedek and Abraham meeting, or is it because the importance of the bread and the wine is so great but so obvious that it goes without saying? Let's study the next few chapters.
For one thing we already saw back in Hebrews 5, verses 5 and 6 where God has sworn an oath to Jesus Christ. He says, "Thou art my Son. Today have I begotten thee." And he also says in another place, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." To be God's Son is like the same thing as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Remember way back in the Old Testament before the Golden Calf, fathers were high priests and firstborn sons were priests under their authority. This seemed to be the natural family pattern of Melchizedek. This is how the ancient Jews as well as the ancient Church Fathers understood it.
~ The Eucharist as the Meal of Melchizedek
The New Testament begins, "This is Jesus Christ, the seed of the son of Abraham, the Son of David." Jesus Christ is the one in and through whom God fulfills that oath he swore to Abraham. Where did he swear it? On Moriah, where the temple was later built and where Christ, the New Temple was later destroyed and rebuilt three days afterwards. It talks about this oath and then it goes on to talk about the priesthood of Melchizedek. In chapter 7, the first ten verses, it describes how Abraham met Melchizedek. It talks about the meaning of his name. He's the king of righteousness, that's what Melchizedek means in Hebrew. He is the King of Salem, which means peace, shalom. He is the priest of God Most High and he blessed Abraham, so he was superior to Abraham. Everything is mentioned about the meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek except one thing, the bread and the wine.
Now we are going to ask a question. Is that because the bread and the wine was the only thing that was unimportant about Melchizedek and Abraham meeting, or is it because the importance of the bread and the wine is so great but so obvious that it goes without saying? Let's study the next few chapters.
For one thing we already saw back in Hebrews 5, verses 5 and 6 where God has sworn an oath to Jesus Christ. He says, "Thou art my Son. Today have I begotten thee." And he also says in another place, "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." To be God's Son is like the same thing as being a priest after the order of Melchizedek. Remember way back in the Old Testament before the Golden Calf, fathers were high priests and firstborn sons were priests under their authority. This seemed to be the natural family pattern of Melchizedek. This is how the ancient Jews as well as the ancient Church Fathers understood it.
~ The Eucharist as the Meal of Melchizedek
And a quote from this other article:
The common reading of the Bible is that Jesus “died for our sins”—either to pay a debt to the devil (common in the first millennium) or to pay a debt to God (proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, 1033-1109). Franciscan philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus (1266-1308) agreed with neither of these understandings.
The common reading of the Bible is that Jesus “died for our sins”—either to pay a debt to the devil (common in the first millennium) or to pay a debt to God (proposed by Anselm of Canterbury, 1033-1109). Franciscan philosopher and theologian John Duns Scotus (1266-1308) agreed with neither of these understandings.
Duns Scotus was not guided by the Temple language of debt, atonement, or blood sacrifice (understandably used by the Gospel writers and by Paul). He was inspired by the cosmic hymns in the first chapters of Colossians and Ephesians and the Prologue to John’s Gospel (1:1-18) and gave a theological and philosophical base to St. Francis’ deep intuitions of God’s love. While the Church has not rejected the Franciscan position, it has been a minority view.
~ https://cac.org/at-one-ment-not-atonement-2018-01-21/
~ https://cac.org/at-one-ment-not-atonement-2018-01-21/
Upvote
0
section9+1
Well-Known Member
"No one may appear before me empty handed." Cain and Abel both brought offerings to God. God accepted one and rejected the other. What does this tell us? It tells me that it is God who decides what is an acceptable sacrifice and what isn't. The most acceptable one is to live without sin. God likes that best, but when that doesn't happen, something else has to be offered. God says he wants blood for sin. So what we like and would rather bring, are of no account. He decides what will serve. The temple and the entire animal sacrifices are done away with. There is a choice of only two. Christ's death or yours. The grace and mercy of it all is that we have the privilege to chose Christ's blood in place of our own. Be true to scripture and don't devise a methodology that sound pleasant and workable to you. It is not what he demands.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
There’s no question that Hebrews talks about the need for blood. However you need to look at why. Its explanations are all in terms of establishing the new covenant. Rather than saying Christ had to die because of the need for punishment, it says that in order for a will to be established, the testator has to die.
On the face of it, this is an odd justification. But it does fit with Rom 6, which speaks of Christ’s death as benefiting us because we die with him to sin and are reborn to new life. At the beginning of Rom 7 Paul hints at a similar argument: law no longer holds after death.
As always I caution people against seeing familiar phrases in the Bible, and assuming that the whole argument is what you’re expecting.
Hebrews also cites Ps 51 with the clear understanding that God didn’t want sacrifice to forgive people. My sense of the overall argument is that he didn’t think of OT sacrifices as vicarious punishment, but rather as pointers to Christ, who even for those living in OT times, is the only source for actual forgiveness.
On the face of it, this is an odd justification. But it does fit with Rom 6, which speaks of Christ’s death as benefiting us because we die with him to sin and are reborn to new life. At the beginning of Rom 7 Paul hints at a similar argument: law no longer holds after death.
As always I caution people against seeing familiar phrases in the Bible, and assuming that the whole argument is what you’re expecting.
Hebrews also cites Ps 51 with the clear understanding that God didn’t want sacrifice to forgive people. My sense of the overall argument is that he didn’t think of OT sacrifices as vicarious punishment, but rather as pointers to Christ, who even for those living in OT times, is the only source for actual forgiveness.
Upvote
0
section9+1
Well-Known Member
I don't think punishment is a good concept either. It's more like meeting a requirement. Sin brings on death. That's just how God set up the whole sin and redemption concept. We can argue about it all we want, but that's just how it is. If we expect to be in heaven with him we must be clean of all wrongness. And the price for wrongness is death. Either ours or a substitute. In a sense there is no such thing as just forgiveness like a Monopoly game get out of jail free card. It doesn't exist. Always a payment is required. We are all bought with a price. A ransom. Someone always has to die. It's all about blood and death because through them only is life attainable.
Upvote
0
section9+1
Well-Known Member
My body must die. Who cares. I never expected to avoid that. That is God's gift to me. Living forever in this life would be the greatest of horrors. That's not the issue. "He that lives and believes in me shall never die." There is no second death for those for whom he died.
Upvote
0
Calvin had an interesting comment on Genesis. He didn't think we were ever intended to live on earth forever. If we hadn't fallen, we would have had a peaceful transition into eternal life. It wouldn't resemble death as we know it now, but it would still be the end of mortal existence.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The West errs by artificially separating the atonement from the incarnation and resurrection. Jesus had to die, not to be a bloodletting sacrifice to appease an angry and vindictive god, but because in His incarnation He became man to identify with humans and to reverse and overcome the curse - a recapitulation, an atonemenmt view from the early Eastern church.
Upvote
0
section9+1
Well-Known Member
What curse? No curse has been reversed or overcome--yet. It says God has reconciled himself to us through Christ. If there is no adversity, why the need for reconciliation?
Upvote
0
section9+1
Well-Known Member
I don't think so. Adam was the first real man. As men should have been until he fell. Jesus was the second real man. Only those two. Everyone else has been a little less than "human". Missing the mark of what it is to be a true human. Whatever Adam did can never be undone since through him mankind lost its innocence. We are now as God, now and always. We can never go back. Not even in eternity. Our accountability is sealed. That is the importance and necessity of a real man dying for all the lesser men. Only he could do it for us all since he had no need to do it for himself and if we appropriate his sacrifice for us we are in no more need of sacrificing ourselves for our sins. Sin will always be paid for--always. Only question is, who will do the paying.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Similar threads
