>>This verse shows me that God no longer requires the blood of animals as a sacrifice for the atonment of sin. I want you to show me where God does not want blood as the atonement for sin, ever.
Are you trying to tell me that God changes his mind? If Isaiah claims God delights not in these things, why would he ever delight in these things?
>>The Old Cavanent: GOd wanted animal sacrifice, which He himself gave the first exmaple of.
Isaiah is OT material isn't it? You are again accepting the prehistoric legends at face value as I see it. Just because the Israelites believed this to be true, it's rather clear that Isaiah didn't much value the practice. Psalms 51 explains clearly that it's an INNER sacrifice that is pleasing unto God, not animal blood. How do you rationalize away Psalms 50 again?
Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I am God, even thy God.
I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, to have been continually before me.
I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out of thy folds.
For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle upon a thousand hills.
I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field are mine.
If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world is mine, and the fulness thereof.
Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?
>>The New Covanent, Jesus replace animal sacrifice as atonement for our sins.
As I see it, you have a pagan belief worming it's way into a new "religion". This has nothing to do with "truth". What value is there in blood? What value is there in killing?
>>The verse you state above, first off, says that God no,onger requires animal sacrifice, secdonfly, this verse is part of a vision that Isaiah had of the future.. what he saw was the first coming of Christ.
Well, that's a very nice rationalization that ignores what he actually said. He was speaking after all to Sodom and Gamora.
>>This is shown in two places in scripture. In Genesis, we see that Adam, who was created perfect, attained the ability to die after commiting the first sin - by taking upon himself a sinful nature. Secondly, we see in Romans that the wages, or cost, of sin is death.
Let's have a reality check here for a moment. What DNA sequence on the planet, past present or future was ever designed to last forever? Even if it did, these physical bodies are frail. Even if human dna lasted forever, what happens when someone falls off a cliff or suffers a great physical injury? I hardly see how you can suggest that we as a species were ever "immortal".
M>Why would the punishment for sin be death?
>
eath is not the punishemnt for sin.. it is the result of sin.
How can you say that given the realities of physical reality as we understand it? What physical life form is immortal?
>
on't thnk a parent would kill a child for sinning.
Me either.
M>If life is from God, then death must be also, don't you think?
>>Not at all.
Well, unless you have some explanation as to why no physical being is immortal, I'll have to assume that spiritual life is a gift from God, but physical life is by design transitory by nature.
M>Without life, there can be no death.
>>With life there can be no death. Without life there is death.
In a "spiritual" sense, I agree with you. In a physical sense I do not. I don't believe physical reality was ever meant to be perminent.
M>You are going to try to tell me that Isaiah isn't condemning it during his day, but only in the future?
>>Isaiah didn't write these things to condemn the resent poeple but to warn the poeple of what was coming.
It seems to me he was trying to explain the failures of the people he was addressing at the time. He was very much speaking to a contemporary audience.
M>In your book, didn't Jesus die for all sin, past present and future?
>>Yes he did. The animal sacrifice for atonement was only a temprary solution, until Jesus could come and die as a permenent one.
Again, I fail to see how you can simply ignore Psalms 51 and Isaiah outright here. Isaiah totally condemns the practice of animal sacrifice, calling instead for inner sacrifice. Jesus does much the same, claiming we must *DO* as he commanded, not simply give him lip service alone. Blood itself doesn't seem to be the key here to anything useful that I can see. It is the application of Christs teachings that seem to matter. He taught and lived a live of "self" sacrifice.
M>Jesus didn't seem to approve of animal sacrifice to "buy themselves clean", any more than did Martin Luther.
>>Of coarse he didn't approve. He was the sacrifice. Animal sacrifice was no longer needed. They could stop now. Jesus was that sacrifice.
But the blood alone has no value to God. Jesus didn't say we could simply do his words lip service and find salvation through his blood. He commanded us to love our enemy and be perfect. I fail to understand the value of blood to God.
M>All you've done is substituted Jesus in the place of animals. I fail to see how this is any more pleasing to God.
>>And, the difference between animal sacrifice and the sacrifice of Jesus is that Jesus sacrificed Himself as a man. A willing sacrifice.
This is right on the nose. Jesus was talking about "self" sacrifice, not blood covering sin. Jesus was a willing participant. He "sacrificed"(verb) himself, but he was not a "sacrifice" (noun) to appease an angry God.
>>The animlas were not willing in their sacrifice.. they didn't even know they were going to be sacrificed, or what it meant to die. Jesus did, that is why it is more important.
So what again is the author of Psalms 50 trying to say here?
M>I still do not understand why you think God killing himself is somehow "required" to forgive sin.
>>Just the way God wanted it done.
God theatrics? God's mad so he goes to earth to become a human sacrifice to himself and be put to death by sinning humans? I fail to see the logic in that.
M>This is ultimately what you seem to believe.
>>In its simplest way.. yes. Although.. I don't thikn God was suicidal.
Well, since physical reality doesn't define "life", the term "suicidal" has little meaning here. I still don't follow your logic here of why God has to come to earth to be put to death by ingorant humans just so he can forgive sin. Wouldn't stupid, sinning humans killing him just make him madder still?
M>Ok, then why can't God forgive sin without killing, and without blood?
>>Who said God kills becasue of sin?
This seems to be what you are saying. Must animals die for sin to be forgiven? Must anyone die for sin to be forgiven?
M>Why? Suppose it turns out he was a "man" as he claimed to be afterall, and one who'd learned some lessons of his own along the way? Would that destroy your "faith" in God?
>>I agree that He was a man. I also beleive that He was sinless.
All I'm saying ZC, is that you are setting yourself up for a big disappointment if it turns out he was human after all. I fail to understand why you require this of him. I am perfectly willing to accept a fully "human" Messiah, with human faults and everything.
M>I don't see how anyone can have that kind of compassion without understanding the idea of guilt.
>>Who said anything about guilt?
What motivates people to change behaviours that hurt others?
M>That makes no sense. The OT part of the bible was written by Jews. Their definition of the word is what is important. Who cares about what the word means in a different culture?
>>That's my point. You claim the definition is "mising the mark" That definition is not in the OT. I choose to beleive sin, in this context, is of the definition found in the Bible.
It is in the bible ZC. It's engrained into the very words used. Hebrew is a very complex, and wonderful language. It's very letters, and arrangement of letters convey meaning. The word sin, as found in hebrew, conveys the idea of missing the mark. That is in fact the definition of the word in Hebrew.
>>So, to convey the entire meaning you are trying to convey, the answer would be "no".
I cannot convey the *ENTIRE* meaning as separate from God. I can convey the vast majority of it, but comparing actions to the notion of "selfishness" vs. "selflessness", even in the absense of God. Unity is the key in a definition devoid of God.
M>Yet even the bible records that the Spirit descended upon him at baptism. What was his "nature" before this?
>>Sinless
Perhaps. Perhaps he was quite human after all.
M>You seem to have missed a word here. The word SON is important don't you think?
>>I didn't miss it, but it does not excuse their worshipping Him if He was not God.
You are suggesting that "worship" takes only a single form. The reality however is that people could surely "worship" Jesus as the Messiah, yet not as God the Father.
M>It does not say the worshipped him as God. Again you keep reading in things it does not say.
>>But if they worshippped anything else, then they would be worshipping a false idol, which God tols them not to do, so either Jesus was God, or Jesus was a false god.
Except it's not really that simple when you look at the fact that Jesus himself said that we would find UNITY IN GOD.
>>Since Jesus didn't rebuke them.. which was the case?
This is like me saying that reincarnation must be true because Jesus didn't rebuke his disciples for suggesting he was a reborn prophet.
M>My point is that by elevating him to God status, you go directly against Jesus' own teachings. This isn't what Jesus said. He said he was the *SON* of God.
>>How do I go against His teachings? I do not deny that He was the Son of God, I only acept theay He was God at the same time.
But that's *NOT* what he said. He said he was ONE WITH the Father, but he never claimed to be the FATHER.
>>The Father is God, thus Jesus is the Son, but Jesus is also God.
This is the part that defy's Christs own teachings. In John 17, Jesus calls the Father the ONLY TRUE GOD. He describes himself in terms of being a SON of God, and claims others would achieve UNION WITH God. The exclusivity you seem to be imposing here by elevating him to the status of God, is not what Christ himself taught.
>>In either case.. we were tlaking about union here.. why did you change the subject?
I'm not trying to change the subject, I'm simply discussing the connection between God, Holy Spirit, and man.
M>So is Jesus deluded here praying to something outside of himself that doesn't exist?
>>Agian, who said that the Father does not exist? I didn't.
You seem to want to gloss over the fact that in his hour of greatest need, Jesus is on his knees praying to God like any human being. He's feeling fear, as any normal human being would be doing at that point. What does God have to fear? Why do you elevate him to a status he didn't claim?
M>Yes, he certainly did. He said it clearly in John 17 when he refered to God as father, and the only true God.
>>So He talked about the Fathetr there... what bout my question? He never stated He was not God, wohch all these worshipping poeple obviouly beleived. Why didn't he correct them?
Because they were "worshipping" him as the living Messiah. Why should he correct them?
Why didn't Jesus correct the disciples when the suggested that he was a reborn prophet?
M>Why wouldn't say say "pray to me" this way........????
>>Becasue the prayer was not just for those on the earth at the time of Chrsit, but for us too. Since God is in Heaven, we pray to God in heaven. At the time Chrsit gave the prayer to us, only the Father was in Heaven, so the prayer is stated as so.
We seem to be going round and round now with the idea that God splits himself up into father, son and holy Spirit.
M>How do you know Jesus did this any differently?
>>Jesus always forgave sin by Himself and never on behalf of God.
And priests do this even today. What's the difference? Jesus was after all, the living Messiah. What other "MAN" has that right anyway?
M>This seems more like your opinion now, unless you can show me where he claims to be God in the first person. I mean in the whole of his ministries, you'd think you could find something to show that Jesus taught others that he was God incarnate. I can find you dozens of first person quotes from Krishna refering to God in the first person. Why wouldn't Jesus do the same thing?
>>Been there, done that. You didn't see it.
You've not shown me a single sentence where Jesus simply says: I AM GOD THE FATHER or I AM YOUR CREATOR, or I AM God. Why is that? I can show you verse after verse where he claims to be the son of God, incapable of anything without the help of the Father.
M>Sure. Martin Luther King, Ghandi, Nelson Mandella. These are all souls who were moved by the Spirit.
>>Oh my goodness.. now they were devine too? HA!
It would depend on how you defined "divine" exactly.
Divinity:
1. The nature or quality of being God. It belongs to God alone.
Martin Luther King taught unity and love. Jesus did the same. Do these qualities belong to God alone?
2. Having the nature of or being a deity.
This is a bit more vague I'm afraid. What does that mean?
>>These are the definitions I apply to God, and thus apply to Jesus as God. Are you saying these definitions can also apply to others?
#1 sure seems to apply to others. I'm not sure about #2. You'll have to elaborate some.
M>Who did you ban by the way?
>>edpobre. I temp banned him to cool him off. I have since lifted the ban, and he has yet to return to give an apology.
Ed is much closer to your brand of "christianity" than I am. He seems to believe in hell, and atonement, even if he shares some of my views about the connection between God and Jesus. For what it's worth, from my perspective, you seem to be "reactive" at times when I'm not trying to offensive.
M>I am sure. You act as though I have not backed up my ideas through the bible as well. How can you be any more sure than anyone else that your "interpretation" of reality is any closer to the truth than anyone elses?
>>the differecne is that I can back up my beliefs without dismissing any of the Bible, where as you dismiss most of it.
The fact of the matter is, like it or not, that the bible was written by human beings. I am not dismissing the teachings of Jesus, nor am I limiting my search for truth to a single book. If you feel it's somehow a benefit to be this restricted in your spirituality, I can't stop you. All I'm saying is that I can most certainly back up my beliefs through the teachings of Christ himself. All the rest is really just "interpretation" anyway.
M>Why bother communicating with anyone over anything?
>>When you know the outcome? exactly.
How can anyone know the "outcome" of these conversations yet? Who knows what affects is will have on us both over the years?
M>I do not fit your personal "definition" of Christian, but only Christ is a fit judge of that statement.
>>Tis true, He is the final Judge. So, do you consider yourself a type of christian?
I try to follow Christs teachings in my life. In this sense, I am every bit as "Christian" as anyone on the planet. I do not subscribe however to all "Christian" dogma. It's not a yes or no question really.
>>Why do you insist on blending the relationship desscribed in the Trinity as the one Jesus talks about when He says we can have union with God?
Because that is what Jesus said in John 17, and in John 14. He doesn't claim this to be an exclusive "union with" God, in any way. In fact he goes out of his way in John 14 to say that others would do greater things, presumably with his help and blessings.
>>Both are possible. Botyh are real. Both exist, and neitehr contradicts the other.
If you do not allow for others to achieve this same union with God, then you go against what Jesus himself said about it in John 17. I can't do that!
>>We can have Union with God, as Jesus talked about. The Trinity does not exclude that union, nor does it make that union exclusice to Jesus. Why do you keep saying it does?
Because it does. It creates a "separation" between Jesus and us that did not exist, and he did not teach.
M>I quite clearly see a skism between the teachings of Jesus and what the church teaches today in his name. I've already outlined the parts I felt were most important.
>>You create one in my view.
And from my perspective, I'm simply noting them.
M>I'll be long gone by then.
>>Gone where?
Back to the loving arms of God from where I came.