It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How does anyone Justify killing an animal to resolve sin?
Even back in the OT times...
If anything, women staying silent hurts matters because them staying silent means their wisdom will never be known, and who doesn't want wisdom?
I don't think it did.
No one answered my question on an earlier page...
This sin sacrifice of old times... How does the slaughter of an animal justify sin?
I can't wrap my brain around the concept...
I think people retrofit the old sacrifices to seem like their idea of what Jesus was doing when he died.
So it is like a circular argument, that 'Jesus died to pay for sins because that was what animal sacrifices were for, right?'
Why this has anything to do with Jesus, I've got no explanation. Maybe Judaic Christians can explain it.
It invites the tendency to miss the lessons for the teacher, which often means that you limit your understanding of those lessons to that one particular manifestation. Just as you wouldn't limit the concept of a motorized vehicle to a Ford Escape, you wouldn't limit your understanding of love to one person's demonstration of it. They simply provide an additional gradient to the meaning, along with every other example and demonstration.
You wouldn't forgo the vast spectrum of color in favor of the one that appeals to you. I wouldn't forgo the vast spectrum of meaning in favor of the one manifestation I am taught to appreciate. And worship tends to bring that approach out in people.
Where would a son be without having a father?
I feel that Jesus had no right to erect himself as the foremost manifestation of the lessons he taught.
. . .
Jesus had his time, left his mark, and is now all but forgotten - if one is willing to overlook the mythos left in his wake, that is. His legacy is established. It is only fair that we make room for other visionaries to have their chance. How else are we to make progress if we never try anything new?
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Never has any President declared themselves the eternal icon of this nation. Washington is not hailed as the one sole representative of America, and Bill Gates is not the sole mascot of Microsoft. They are given the chair for a period of time in recognition of their capability and intentions. When they have finished, a new leader is chosen to beat a path. Jesus had his time, left his mark, and is now all but forgotten - if one is willing to overlook the mythos left in his wake, that is. His legacy is established. It is only fair that we make room for other visionaries to have their chance. How else are we to make progress if we never try anything new?
You did have a person on a throne and considered to be divinely approved (son of god), at that time. Tiberius would have been the current holder of that position. The Roman authorization of the imperial cultus was made by decree of the Senate during the reign of Augustus.
That him in center stage is a fantasy? That imagining him on a throne is delusion?
Originally posted by jmdewey60
I should probably make a note of what I was reading while writing my last post.
Gospel of Matthew in its Roman Imperial Context (Library Of New Testament Studies), John K. Riches
I was not quoting the book but getting information from it, and also inspiration in general on what was going on in Matthew and what were the points being made.
Anyway, it is a nice book that you could probably read in like three hours, and would be helpful to anyone trying to see the Gospel in its context, as the title suggests.
What's your point?
Isn't it the Christian claim that Jesus was worshipped as God/King?