How does Blood save?

reply to post by WarminIndy


That is a lovely and elaborate explanation... but it does not answer the question...

Jesus said "I will have mercy, AND NOT SACRIFICE"... he also made it very clear that the only sacrifice that God wants comes from within... Not from spilling blood.

SO the question sill remains after all these pages... How exactly does blood save?

How does sacrificing the innocent save the guilty...

The OT God requires the blood of the innocent as if one can pass off their sins on another...

And that is nothing more then a lie...

A mans sins are his own... and the only one who can forgive those sins are the person or persons the sin was against... OR God

Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.... For if you forgive you will be forgiven, but if you do not forgive... your Father in heaven will not forgive you... Matthew 6 (paraphrased)

Akragon
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

That is a lovely and elaborate explanation... but it does not answer the question...

Jesus said "I will have mercy, AND NOT SACRIFICE"... he also made it very clear that the only sacrifice that God wants comes from within... Not from spilling blood.

SO the question sill remains after all these pages... How exactly does blood save?

How does sacrificing the innocent save the guilty...

The OT God requires the blood of the innocent as if one can pass off their sins on another...

And that is nothing more then a lie...

A mans sins are his own... and the only one who can forgive those sins are the person or persons the sin was against... OR God

Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.... For if you forgive you will be forgiven, but if you do not forgive... your Father in heaven will not forgive you... Matthew 6 (paraphrased)

Read Micah 6, that's the chapter I used.

Jesus was quoting from Micah and all the verses in the OT where God kept saying "I desire mercy and not sacrifice". He desired mercy, but the system was set up that sacrifices were kept, and only until Jesus became that last sacrifice, then He upheld the law in every word and deed.

Exactly, we should not have to sacrifice if we are able to keep those requirements. But man has never been able to, even now. But for those who are able to, then no sacrifice is required whatsoever.

I think you have that point made. But at the same time, because of man's failure to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly, then the sacrifice must be made. And if we harm someone else, then should we not atone for that?

Jesus merely pointed out to them that their sacrifices were meaningless, because they forgot their own condition, while still sacrificing.

So, a life for a life. That is why Jesus came, and yes, He was telling them the Torah, God desires mercy and not sacrifice. It is in the OT, but who wants to read about a God who tells them to have mercy on each other?

reply to post by WarminIndy

He desired mercy, but the system was set up that sacrifices were kept, and only until Jesus became that last sacrifice, then He upheld the law in every word and deed.

He did not uphold "the law" according to the book... He changed it, and broke laws.

Exactly, we should not have to sacrifice if we are able to keep those requirements. But man has never been able to, even now. But for those who are able to, then no sacrifice is required whatsoever.

And no man has ever been able to keep "the law"... so it was pointless and futile to begin with...

I think you have that point made. But at the same time, because of man's failure to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly, then the sacrifice must be made. And if we harm someone else, then should we not atone for that?

yes... by asking forgiveness... Not by spilling the blood of he innocent...

Jesus merely pointed out to them that their sacrifices were meaningless, because they forgot their own condition, while still sacrificing.

There was no condition... the people "under the law" were.. and still are under mans laws... God does not require the blood of the innocent... And further more this idea was meshed into the life of Jesus by calling him the sacrifice... again, the blood of a man who is innocent to appease a blood thirsty terrorist of so called god who the jews worshipped... who is "god of the dead" which is why he wants what he considers "life" which is in the blood according to their silly man made laws...

So, a life for a life. That is why Jesus came, and yes, He was telling them the Torah, God desires mercy and not sacrifice. It is in the OT, but who wants to read about a God who tells them to have mercy on each other?

NO... Not a life for a life.... Forgiveness does not require taking a life... We do not need to kill anything to ask for forgiveness from our sins...

And theres a lot of things in the OT that Jesus quoted... he used the OT to get his message across to the confused people that followed that god

reply to post by WarminIndy

So, a life for a life. That is why Jesus came

That sounds a whole lot like the theology of "an eye for an eye". Here's what Jesus said about that theology:

Matthew 5
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Jesus did not agree with the "eye for an eye" ideology, which is why he corrected it. Life for a life is the same as an eye for an eye, meaning Jesus would not agree with you.

reply to post by Akragon


Then you have the idea about forgiveness.

Even forgiveness is an atoning and for some people, it is a sacrifice.

So what's the problem with blood sacrifice when forgiveness is already a remission?

I think your point should be "Why The Necessity of Blood Sacrifice If Forgiveness Also Atones"

But people don't ask forgiveness when they do terrible things to each other, so the law required atonement. It still does today, that's why we put people in prison. They have to atone somehow.

You have made the connection. Blood sacrifice cannot atone when forgiveness does. But what about those who choose not to forgive or those who choose not to apologize?

reply to post by WarminIndy


For those who do not forgive, neither will they be forgiven.

Matthew 6
15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

No blood sacrifice is needed, only forgiveness and love for others.

32 “Well said, teacher,” the man replied. “You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but him. 33 To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

34 When Jesus saw that he had answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And from then on no one dared ask him any more questions.

When you have love for others and forgive them no sacrifice is needed. If you do not love others or forgive them you will not be forgiven, even with a sacrifice.

reply to post by WarminIndy

So what's the problem with blood sacrifice when forgiveness is already a remission?

Well lets see... first off its barbaric...

Secondly... A false God asks for this "sacrifice" if we want to get biblical... and if spilling the blood of the innocent is a good thing, then you might as well worship the rest of the false gods who asked for blood through out history... as you clearly know there are quite a few

Third... You're causing another living creature harm for no reason what so ever...

But people don't ask forgiveness when they do terrible things to each other, so the law required atonement.

Again... mans law... Gods law is love... and it is not loving to harm another living creature verbally or physically

It still does today, that's why we put people in prison. They have to atone somehow.

So why don't we just slit the throat of a lamb and let them go... its atonement right? LMAO!!

sorry but its very amusing that people can't make this connection

But what about those who choose not to forgive or those who choose not to apologize?

According to Jesus they remain in their sins... and remain unforgiven by God

IF one chooses not to forgive... that is their choice...

Akragon
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

So what's the problem with blood sacrifice when forgiveness is already a remission?

Well lets see... first off its barbaric...

Secondly... A false God asks for this "sacrifice" if we want to get biblical... and if spilling the blood of the innocent is a good thing, then you might as well worship the rest of the false gods who asked for blood through out history... as you clearly know there are quite a few

Third... You're causing another living creature harm for no reason what so ever...

But people don't ask forgiveness when they do terrible things to each other, so the law required atonement.

Again... mans law... Gods law is love... and it is not loving to harm another living creature verbally or physically

It still does today, that's why we put people in prison. They have to atone somehow.

So why don't we just slit the throat of a lamb and let them go... its atonement right? LMAO!!

sorry but its very amusing that people can't make this connection

But what about those who choose not to forgive or those who choose not to apologize?

According to Jesus they remain in their sins... and remain unforgiven by God

IF one chooses not to forgive... that is their choice...

edit on 22-11-2013 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

Ok, that's how you believe.

But you and I are not living in a time of blood sacrifices, so we can afford the luxury of hindsight, and no Jewish person today would do that anymore.

I do think that most Jews today say the same thing, it is barbaric. So what you have merely done is raise philosophical questions that rabbis themselves have been asking throughout time.

I could only tell you what the belief in it was, I didn't tell you whether it was right or wrong, that is left up to your own views of morality, which this thread is about.

You could have asked "Is it Moral To Sacrifice Animals", then you could discuss morality within that context. But since you had asked "How Does It?", and I gave you the answer for why they believed in it, you have to consider if your morality is right, or if it is moral relativism on your part.

If it is not relevant to you, but to someone else it is, then this is no longer a debate about blood sacrifices, but the moral implications. And if it is your own moral relevance, then how is that more right than those who do believe in blood sacrifice?

Whose morality is more right? Let's put that into this discussion as well, we can't just leave moral relativism in a confined space when it suits us and then blame others for their moral relativism.

So, playing Devil's Advocate here...why is it barbaric?

reply to post by WarminIndy


I've already covered that numerous times in this thread... and this is an old thread, but I know my stance on it... thus I also know what I've already said

It is barbaric because you must harm another living creature... In the context of what was done... One must slit the throat of a lamb... which is a BABY.... and lets its blood spill on the ground

Its a disgusting practice... even back then... Whats worse is this so called god also asks these people to burn the body because "he likes the scent of burn flesh"... as if God cares about the smell of anything...

its utterly ludicrous!

One can not Pawn their sins off on another being... I don't care what any book says... YOUR sins are YOURS and no one elses... they belong to the being that committed the sin... and can not be removed by ripping open the neck of an innocent animal and letting its blood spill on the ground

Period

Akragon
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I've already covered that numerous times in this thread... and this is an old thread, but I know my stance on it... thus I also know what I've already said

It is barbaric because you must harm another living creature... In the context of what was done... One must slit the throat of a lamb... which is a BABY.... and lets its blood spill on the ground

Its a disgusting practice... even back then... Whats worse is this so called god also asks these people to burn the body because "he likes the scent of burn flesh"... as if God cares about the smell of anything...

its utterly ludicrous!

One can not Pawn their sins off on another being... I don't care what any book says... YOUR sins are YOURS and no one elses... they belong to the being that committed the sin... and can not be removed by ripping open the neck of an innocent animal and letting its blood spill on the ground

Period

hmmm, see, this is why it is moral relativism. Suppose I countered with "abortion is barbaric". The baby's arms, legs, and head are hacked off, or melted in a saline solution. But abortion isn't barbaric, is it?

See, that's why moral relativism is this discussion. You see blood sacrifice as barbaric, but what about abortion? Should a child be sacrificed to atone for the lifestyle of the mother?

So, if abortion is acceptable to our society, then how is blood sacrifice not acceptable? We have to keep these things in the discussion, because you aren't asking anymore why, you are asking the moral issues of blood sacrifice. That is your defense, your moral relativism, and since I have graciously entered the conversation, then my counter-point in moral relativism is "is abortion less barbaric than blood sacrifices?"

But since this is about blood sacrifice, why is it barbaric? That's a moral issue. And your defense is from your own moral relativism, and then it is no longer objective. It is now subjective. So, why do you call it barbaric? (Devil's Advocate asks again)

reply to post by WarminIndy


Love me some moral discussions... Stars for your posts sista

Interestingly enough I just had this discussion with my GF last night...

Abortion is also killing another living creature... I don't agree with it what so ever, but I can understand why it happens in some cases...

When it comes down to it... That person who makes the choice of aborting their child must deal with that for the rest of their life... In some cases that might just be punishment enough... but again when it comes down to it, and that person passes and faces God... What will they say?

I killed my own child? I don't see how that can be justified to the Father

A child is a blessing no matter where or what the circumstances of its creation... and should be treated as such

I only hope that one day I am blessed with at least one...

And those that already have a child...

Look into the eyes of your child... and know that you are looking into the very eyes of God

reply to post by Akragon


I like to think of it this way: would you want someone slitting your throat and spilling your blood on the ground as a sacrifice? If not, it is immoral. I doubt anyone would want that done to them, so why do it to others, animals included? Animals are people too.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is the golden rule and what morals are based on in my opinion, so if you do something to someone that you wouldn't want done to you, it is immoral.

reply to post by Akragon


And this leaves man without excuse. There is no more atonement in blood sacrifices and that was what Jesus was saying.

He took upon Himself, to end the blood sacrifice system. He ended it. But had mankind been doing justly all along, then there would not have been the need for sacrifices.

When He said "It is finished" then it was finished, over, done, complete. I suppose you could say He was the "Final Sacrifice".

And if it was barbaric, then that's the point that had to be made. But even if we read that, in that act of barbarism of the lambs under Moses, after they were roasted, they ate them. So one could say it was a big BBQ. So it wasn't like they threw the lambs away after roasting them. So it filled two purposes.