Where is the sacrifice?

[CryptoLutheran]

So Jesus was born/created just before he came to earth? Is this just a personal opinion or is there scripture in the bible that indicates this

K

It's a non-orthodox position generally described as Modalistic Monarchianism, it had some level of popularity among a few in the third century and its two most well known proponents were Sabellius and Praxeus (it was also called Sabellianism, after Sabellius).

Also, it's not that Jesus was "born/created", but rather that the term "Son" describes Jesus as a human being, thus Jesus pre-existed as God the Father and became/was manifest as "the Son" while on earth. That's classical Modalistic Monarchianism in a nutshell, it's also taught in a few unorthodox churches such as the United Pentecostals which call it "Oneness theology".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Emmy]

Dear Ken-1122. Jesus died that we might live, Jesus reconciled us to God. It was His sinless and pure Blood, which paid for our Sins. Now Jesus-God-Son is with God-Father, to plead our prayers, but His Blood paid the Prize. I say this with love, Ken. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

 

[Ken-1122]

My point is that even in English "sacrifice" does not always or even necessarily primarily mean to lose something forever. That's a definition, but not the only definition.

-CryptoLutheran

so which definition contridicts what I said? maybe I missed it

K

 

[Ken-1122]

Dear Ken-1122. Jesus died that we might live, Jesus reconciled us to God. It was His sinless and pure Blood, which paid for our Sins. Now Jesus-God-Son is with God-Father, to plead our prayers, but His Blood paid the Prize. I say this with love, Ken. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ.

Thank-you sister Emmy! I appreciate your kind words and your good intentions.

Thanks
Ken

 

[solarwave]

So Jesus was born/created just before he came to earth? Is this just a personal opinion or is there scripture in the bible that indicates this

K

I assume, and I could be wrong, that Jesus was created when He was physically born, not before. I don't know if there is scripture for or against that off the top of my head, but it seems like the most reasonable understanding.

 

[GA777]

sac·ri·fice/ˈsakrəˌfīs/

the act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform.

1 of the different meanings,so it is true.He lost everything in order to give us everything (you know what I'm talking about)

And if this is the sacrifice you're talking about,then nobody was sacrificed on earth,because every spirit returns to God and we are created as spirituals beings at then made into the bodily form.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

so which definition contridicts what I said? maybe I missed it

K

"an act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to God or to a divine or supernatural figure:"

It can involve losing a thing; but in many cultures--the Hebrew one included--when the sacrificial animal was slaughtered it would later be retrieved and eaten.

If sacrifice meant losing something forever (and that's what it always meant) then "sacrifice" would be an inappropriate term to describe cultic sacrifice as practiced by most of the ancient world and in many cultures today.

If one wanted to follow the analogy of Jesus as sacrifice really strongly then after He was sacrificed, God retrieved Him--raised Him up to life--and He is now the nourishment we receive, most obviously in the Eucharist itself. Wherein St. Paul's remarks make the most sense contextually:

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not communion in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not communion in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?" - 1 Corinthians 10:16-18

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken-1122]

sac·ri·fice/ˈsakrəˌfīs/

the act of losing or surrendering something as a penalty for a mistake or fault or failure to perform.

1 of the different meanings,so it is true.He lost everything in order to give us everything (you know what I'm talking about)

And if this is the sacrifice you're talking about,then nobody was sacrificed on earth,because every spirit returns to God and we are created as spirituals beings at then made into the bodily form.

So if I understand you correctly, If what I am saying is true, human sacrifices are impossible because the soul isn't lost it either goes to heaven or hell upon death. I guess the only true sacrifices would be animals or something owned that does not have as soul huh? Mybe we can agree to disagree on this one. Excellent point though.

K

 

[Ken-1122]

"an act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to God or to a divine or supernatural figure:"

It can involve losing a thing; but in many cultures--the Hebrew one included--when the sacrificial animal was slaughtered it would later be retrieved and eaten.

If sacrifice meant losing something forever (and that's what it always meant) then "sacrifice" would be an inappropriate term to describe cultic sacrifice as practiced by most of the ancient world and in many cultures today.

If one wanted to follow the analogy of Jesus as sacrifice really strongly then after He was sacrificed, God retrieved Him--raised Him up to life--and He is now the nourishment we receive, most obviously in the Eucharist itself. Wherein St. Paul's remarks make the most sense contextually:

"The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not communion in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not communion in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread. Consider the people of Israel: are not those who eat the sacrifices participants in the altar?" - 1 Corinthians 10:16-18

-CryptoLutheran

So you say when the Hebrews would sacrifice an animal to God, they would retrieve what was given to God and keep and eat themselves? Wow never heard that one before; sounds like a little cheatin was goin on; ya think?

Ken

 

[CryptoLutheran]

So you say when the Hebrews would sacrifice an animal to God, they would retrieve what was given to God and keep and eat themselves? Wow never heard that one before; sounds like a little cheatin was goin on; ya think?

Ken

No, because that's how the system was established. That's what the korbanot involved.

Sacrifice wasn't about losing the animal, but about ritual offering, the slaughter of the sacrificial animal was the sacrifice; that's how it was for the ancient Hebrews and how it's been in many--if not most or all--ancient cultures which practiced ritual sacrifice.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Incariol]

So you say when the Hebrews would sacrifice an animal to God, they would retrieve what was given to God and keep and eat themselves? Wow never heard that one before; sounds like a little cheatin was goin on; ya think?

Ken

No....

"
14"And this is the law of the grain offering. The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD in front of the altar. 15And one shall take from it a handful of the fine flour of the grain offering and its oil and all the frankincense that is on the grain offering and burn this as its memorial portion on the altar, a pleasing aroma to the LORD. 16And the rest of it Aaron and his sons shall eat. It shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place. In the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it. 17 It shall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of my food offerings. It is a thing most holy, like the sin offering and the guilt offering. 18Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as decreed forever throughout your generations, from the LORD’s food offerings. Whatever touches them shall become holy.""


"

24The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 25"Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering. In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD; it is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In a holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting. 27Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy, and when any of its blood is splashed on a garment, you shall wash that on which it was splashed in a holy place. 28And the earthenware vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken. But if it is boiled in a bronze vessel, that shall be scoured and rinsed in water. 29Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most holy. 30 But no sin offering shall be eaten from which any blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place; it shall be burned up with fire."




"

1 "This is the law of the guilt offering. It is most holy. 2 In the place where they kill the burnt offering they shall kill the guilt offering, and its blood shall be thrown against the sides of the altar. 3And all its fat shall be offered, the fat tail, the fat that covers the entrails, 4the two kidneys with the fat that is on them at the loins, and the long lobe of the liver that he shall remove with the kidneys. 5The priest shall burn them on the altar as a food offering to the LORD; it is a guilt offering. 6 Every male among the priests may eat of it. It shall be eaten in a holy place. It is most holy. 7The guilt offering is just like the sin offering; there is one law for them. The priest who makes atonement with it shall have it. 8And the priest who offers any man’s burnt offering shall have for himself the skin of the burnt offering that he has offered. 9And every grain offering baked in the oven and all that is prepared on a pan or a griddle shall belong to the priest who offers it. 10And every grain offering, mixed with oil or dry, shall be shared equally among all the sons of Aaron."


And so on. You should actually read the Bible, specifically the sacrificial law, before criticizing it, because there is no way you read through Leviticus and didn't notice that God specifically ordained this.

 

[GA777]

So if I understand you correctly, If what I am saying is true, human sacrifices are impossible because the soul isn't lost it either goes to heaven or hell upon death. I guess the only true sacrifices would be animals or something owned that does not have as soul huh? Mybe we can agree to disagree on this one. Excellent point though.

K

animals have souls too,but where their souls go,I have no idea.And there's a possibilty that these animals are present in the afterlife too , but there's no reference about this in the bible to back my claim up tho.

 

[razeontherock]

How was his life a sacrafice?


K

How was it not? Why did He come down from heaven, to suffer humiliation during his life? Can you imagine growing up in a poor carpenter's home, in a land where you can't even grow a tree? What happened the first time he scrapped apiece of wood by messing up?

Think this through for a bit ... how old was He when He raised His first blister?

 

[razeontherock]

So Isaac came back from the dead? You lost me on that one bro

K

Yup, but there's great significance to this.

 

[razeontherock]

So you say when the Hebrews would sacrifice an animal to God, they would retrieve what was given to God and keep and eat themselves? Wow never heard that one before; sounds like a little cheatin was goin on; ya think?

Ken

No! It was God, preparing people's hearts and minds to be able to "hear the Gospel." The fact that you "never heard that one before," should tell you that you have not "heard the Gospel," and therefore have no way to relate to it. This is a good way to gain insight into your very question of the OP; understanding the nature of the sacrifice, beginning with the law of Moses. (Although it was instituted with Adam and Eve, who did nothing to provide the sacrifice, and benefited at least by having clothes, if not a meal)

 

[Ken-1122]

No....

"
14"And this is the law of the grain offering. The sons of Aaron shall offer it before the LORD in front of the altar. 15And one shall take from it a handful of the fine flour of the grain offering and its oil and all the frankincense that is on the grain offering and burn this as its memorial portion on the altar, a pleasing aroma to the LORD. 16And the rest of it Aaron and his sons shall eat. It shall be eaten unleavened in a holy place. In the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it. 17 It shall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of my food offerings. It is a thing most holy, like the sin offering and the guilt offering. 18Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as decreed forever throughout your generations, from the LORD’s food offerings. Whatever touches them shall become holy.""


"

24The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 25"Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering. In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD; it is most holy. 26 The priest who offers it for sin shall eat it. In a holy place it shall be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting. 27Whatever touches its flesh shall be holy, and when any of its blood is splashed on a garment, you shall wash that on which it was splashed in a holy place. 28And the earthenware vessel in which it is boiled shall be broken. But if it is boiled in a bronze vessel, that shall be scoured and rinsed in water. 29Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most holy. 30 But no sin offering shall be eaten from which any blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the Holy Place; it shall be burned up with fire."




"

1 "This is the law of the guilt offering. It is most holy. 2 In the place where they kill the burnt offering they shall kill the guilt offering, and its blood shall be thrown against the sides of the altar. 3And all its fat shall be offered, the fat tail, the fat that covers the entrails, 4the two kidneys with the fat that is on them at the loins, and the long lobe of the liver that he shall remove with the kidneys. 5The priest shall burn them on the altar as a food offering to the LORD; it is a guilt offering. 6 Every male among the priests may eat of it. It shall be eaten in a holy place. It is most holy. 7The guilt offering is just like the sin offering; there is one law for them. The priest who makes atonement with it shall have it. 8And the priest who offers any man’s burnt offering shall have for himself the skin of the burnt offering that he has offered. 9And every grain offering baked in the oven and all that is prepared on a pan or a griddle shall belong to the priest who offers it. 10And every grain offering, mixed with oil or dry, shall be shared equally among all the sons of Aaron."


And so on. You should actually read the Bible, specifically the sacrificial law, before criticizing it, because there is no way you read through Leviticus and didn't notice that God specifically ordained this.

Okay if I am understanding you correctly you are saying that the people who sacrificed the animal didn't loose out because they were able to eat the animal as well; right?
But the people aren't the sacrifice; the animal is! And the animal didn't get his life back like Jesus, thus the animal sacrificed his life. Because Jesus got his life back and was completely restored, how can you call him the sacrifice?

K

 

[Ken-1122]

How was it not? Why did He come down from heaven, to suffer humiliation during his life? Can you imagine growing up in a poor carpenter's home, in a land where you can't even grow a tree? What happened the first time he scrapped apiece of wood by messing up?

Think this through for a bit ... how old was He when He raised His first blister?

That was just typical life back then

K

 

[Ken-1122]

No! It was God, preparing people's hearts and minds to be able to "hear the Gospel." The fact that you "never heard that one before," should tell you that you have not "heard the Gospel," and therefore have no way to relate to it.

One oversite does not equate a lack of knowledge of the Gospel.

Ken

 

[razeontherock]

That was just typical life back then

K

Yup. And quite different from His abode in heaven - therefore His life here was a sacrifice. The Incarnation will teach much, if you let it. (It works even just as a thought experiment, even without believing it occurred)

 

[razeontherock]

One oversite does not equate a lack of knowledge of the Gospel.

Ken

Disagreed, and strongly! ANY oversight = being astray:

"Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" (1 Corinthians 5:6)

Mat 16:6 Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees."