It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: KansasGirl
But how can that really be? We were created in God's image. Part of that is our independence, our free will. If we weren't free to make our own decisions, then we wouldn't be an imager of God.
But ugh, it brings me back to this blood sacrifice thing. I may never understand it, though I want to!
Your explanation of the theory that the ransom is paid to Satan- that makes sense to me! If we choose sin, we've chosen Satan in that moment and therefore he has a claim on us. But then the blood thing again: how does blood enable our purchase? What does Satan get, from that blood, that makes up for our removal from his realm?
originally posted by: KansasGirl
But the blood; I don't see how sprinkling blood on the altar and other things in the holy place makes a person fit to be there, or no longer defiled, etc.
originally posted by: KansasGirl
No one addresses the blood issue- why blood?
originally posted by: KansasGirl
Please read my first response in this thread if you haven't (this is addressed to everyone responding, not you specifically, Kets). The Levitical sacrificial system was for the purpose of MAKING ONE FIT TO OCCUPY SACRED SPACE. How does blood-placing blood on the altar and other temple objects- make a person fit to be in that space?
originally posted by: KansasGirl
What is the blood doing, that placing it on objects makes one safe to be in that space?
originally posted by: KansasGirl
Blood must do something, since it's used in the OT and the NT, with Jesus's death.
originally posted by: KansasGirl
It can't just be a replacement for life ("the life is in the blood" explanation), since the sacrifices in the OT were mainly made for a person being defiled by every day human activities: coming into contact with seminal fluid, coming into contact with blood (in fact, women had to make an offering every month after their periods, to be fit for sacred space again), touching a dead body, eating something unclean.....etc. how does blood fix those things?
Jeremiah says (ch7 vv21-26) that God never asked for animal sacrifice at Sinai, and I believe him. What God asked for was obedience.
Jeremiah 7:21-28. Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel — And let Israel hear when their God speaks — Put your burnt-offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh — The burnt-offerings, after they were flayed, were to be consumed wholly upon the altar, Leviticus 1:9; whereas, in the sacrifices of the peace-offerings, only the fat was to be burned upon the altar; part of the remainder belonging to the priests, and the rest being the portion of the offerer, to be eaten with his friends in a kind of religious feast. But here the prophet tells the Jews that they may eat the flesh of their burnt-offerings as well as that of their peace-offerings; that he was equally regardless of the one and the other, and would have nothing to do with them; and that he would never accept offerings from people of so disobedient and refractory a disposition; that to be acceptable to him they must be presented with an humble and obedient mind.
“This leads plainly to the interpretation of the next verses, which are by no means to be taken separately, as if God had not required burnt-offerings and sacrifices at all; but that he did not insist so much upon them as on obedience to the commands of the moral law; or, at least, that the former derived all their efficacy from the latter.” See note on 1 Samuel 15:22. “Sacrifices,” says Dr. Waterland, on this passage, “which were but part of duty, are here opposed to entire and universal obedience. Now the thing which God required, and chiefly insisted upon, was universal righteousness, and not partial obedience, which is next to no obedience, because not performed upon a true principle of obedience.
God does not deny that he had required sacrifices: but he had primarily and principally required obedience, which included sacrifices and all other instances of duty as well as that: and he would not accept of such lame service as those sacrifices amounted to; for that was paying him part only in lieu of the whole. Or we may say, that sacrifices, the out-work, are here opposed to obeying God’s voice; that is, the shadow is opposed to the substance, apparent duty to real hypocrisy, and empty show to sincerity and truth. Sacrifices separate from true holiness, or from a sincere love of God, were not the service which God required; for hypocritical services are no services, but abominations in his sight: he expected, he demanded, religious devout sacrifices; while his people brought him only outside compliments, to flatter him; empty formalities, to affront and dishonour him. These were not the things which God spake of, or commanded: the sacrifices he spake of were pure sacrifices, to be offered up with a clean and upright heart. Those he required, and those only he would accept of as real duty and service.”
originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Deetermined
For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."
What if it means something else. That Jesus spent his life teaching his disciples how to earn the pearl of great price.
A: Atonement gives salvation without self sacrifice.
B: Demands self sacrifice (selling of all we have to buy the pearl of great price).
I think B.
In order for a testament/covenant/inheritance to take place, something or someone has to die.
originally posted by: AutisticEvo
So it's not so much blood as the sacrifice, as something precious to you, something that once given cannot be got back.
originally posted by: Scrutinizing
As for this notion in the thread there's a payment made to the devil? God has to pay off Satan? Utterly ridiculous.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
originally posted by: Scrutinizing
As for this notion in the thread there's a payment made to the devil? God has to pay off Satan? Utterly ridiculous.
Let me clarify. I mentioned this famous theory from Origen only for the purpose of rejecting it.
Mainstream theology considers it completely answered by Anselm.
The purpose of the second post was to put aside the whole "somebody must have received the payment" idea (because it's a quibble that can be used by the sceptics).
originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Scrutinizing
Thank you. But since somebody else apparently misunderstood me as endorsing the idea, it was probably good to get the point clarified anyway.
Then, there would be the presumption the sinner would have something with which to buy Christ with. In our flesh is no good thing! What would a lost sinner buy Christ with? We're not seeking Christ by nature, have nothing to buy Him with, and He's not for sale. It's blaspheme to say you can buy the Lord Jesus Christ, Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven.
it is not about possessions.