Disprove The Bible, Not Modern Christianity

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

Again, where in Scripture do you see that Jephthan is commended for this foolish vow? See my previous post.

 

 

You quoted it yourself in Hebrews 11:33

who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,

And if God doesn't approve of Jepthah's sacrificing his daughter, why didn't he stop him like he did for Abraham and his son?

[centauri]

rayskidude' date='25 July 2009 - 08:11 AM' timestamp='1248523880' post='470399']

God does not disapprove of executions for capital crimes. Though Jesus was wrongly executed by the Jews and the Romans for crimes He did not commit, God shows His power in that He can take this monumental injustice and use this sacrificial death of His own Son to pay the debt of all sin of all believers for all time.

 

Act 2:21 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.'

Act 2:22 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know--

Act 2:23 this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

Act 2:24 God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, because it was not possible for him to be held by it.

Using Jesus as a vicarious human sin sacrifice would involve God violating his own law on sin sacrifices.

The death of a man, which Acts 2:22 declares Jesus as being, cannot redeem the life of another man.

Psa 49:7(ESV)

Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life,

God had already declared that each person would die for their own sin and could save themselves by repenting and obeying God.

Rayskidude:

But Jesus is not simply a man; He is the unique God-Man of the universe.

<SNIP>

Mat 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

Mat 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

Mat 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).

 

Read also John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, and John 17 - Jesus is God Incarnate.

 

Ergo, His life (and therefore, His death) are of sufficient value to pay the debt of sin.

Jesus isn’t God incarnate because God is not a man, nor a son of man.

God is not a human being nor a hybrid.

Read Num 23:19, Hosea 11:9, 1 Sam 15:29, and Psa 146:3.

God declared that there are no others but him, no other saviors.

Read Isa 44:8, Isa 45:6,22, Isa 43:10-11.

Even if your contradiction of the Hebrew scriptures is ignored, God is eternal and no part of God can die at any time, which leaves only a man dying, which accomplishes nothing because such a death is not a valid sin sacrifice in the first place.

Jesus declared that he has a God and is subservient to God, which renders him less than God.

In another thread you accused me of taking verses out of context, but you have no problem doing it with Isa 7:14.

Jesus was never named Immanuel by his parents, Mary gave birth long after king Ahaz had died, the child Immanuel isn’t God, but has a name that that describes the condition between God and the people of Judah.

Ergo, God is with us(Judah) and not our enemies.

There isn’t anything in Isa 7 that defines Immanuel as a messiah or even a king messiah or God himself.

The life of Jesus doesn’t atone for anything.

[rayskidude]

Jesus isn’t God incarnate because God is not a man, nor a son of man.

God is not a human being nor a hybrid.

Read Num 23:19, Hosea 11:9, 1 Sam 15:29, and Psa 146:3.

 

God is not a man, but you misunderstand so much of Scripture if you don't know the Bible teaches that the Second Person of the Triune God took on a human nature to accomplish God purpose of redeeming sinful people.

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Isa 9:6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this.

Mic 5:2 But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from of old, from ancient days.

 

Then simply read John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, Phil 2:5-11, Heb 2:14-17, and Rom 1:3,4

 

God declared that there are no others but him, no other saviors.

Read Isa 44:8, Isa 45:6,22, Isa 43:10-11.

Exactly - which makes Jesus' claims of His deity so important - as Peter preached in Acts 2; "there is no other name given (other than Jesus) under heaven whereby we must be saved."

 

Even if your contradiction of the Hebrew scriptures is ignored,

 

I don't ignore the OT - but rather ackowledge that Jesus fulfills the Messianic and Abrahamic and Davidic promises of the OT. Can you not see this?

 

God is eternal and no part of God can die at any time, which leaves only a man dying,

You have a woefully deficient definition of death. Death = separation. Adam & Eve died spiritually on the day they sinned - because they were separated from God. We all die when our soul/spirit separates from our body , and our soul exists eternally in heaven or hell.

Php 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.

2Co 5:1 For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.

2Co 5:2 For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling,

2Co 5:3 if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked.

2Co 5:4 For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened--not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life.

2Co 5:5 He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.

2Co 5:6 So we are always of good courage. We know that while we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord,

2Co 5:7 for we walk by faith, not by sight.

2Co 5:8 Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

 

So Jesus died, when He gave up His Spirit, and His sould/spirit separated from His body and He returned to glory.

 

SO death is not non-existence; it is separation. Which again is why the Bible speaks of a Second Death - not annihilation, but eternal separation from God. You need to think these things through more thoroughly.

[centauri]

Jesus isn’t God incarnate because God is not a man, nor a son of man.

God is not a human being nor a hybrid.

Read Num 23:19, Hosea 11:9, 1 Sam 15:29, and Psa 146:3.

 

God is not a man, but you misunderstand so much of Scripture if you don't know the Bible teaches that the Second Person of the Triune God took on a human nature to accomplish God purpose of redeeming sinful people.

<SNIP>

Then simply read John 1, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, Phil 2:5-11, Heb 2:14-17, and Rom 1:3,4

There isn’t anything in the Old Testament that defines God as being three persons.

Isa 7:14 isn’t about God becoming a man.

Isa 9:6-7 doesn’t define Jesus either, Jesus never sat on the throne of David.

Mic 5:2 says nothing about a second person of the Triune God.

I’ll just do what you do, which is to repeat talking points over and over.

Read Num 23:19, Hosea 11:9, 1 Sam 15:29, and Psa 146:3.

Read Isa 44:8, Isa 45:6,22, Isa 43:10-11.

 

God declared that there are no others but him, no other saviors.

Read Isa 44:8, Isa 45:6,22, Isa 43:10-11.

 

Rayskidude:

Exactly - which makes Jesus' claims of His deity so important - as Peter preached in Acts 2; "there is no other name given (other than Jesus) under heaven whereby we must be saved."

Jesus claimed to have a God, which Peter confirms.

Peter declares that Jesus has a God in the following:

1 Peter 1:3

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

 

Peter didn’t read Isaiah very carefully.

Jesus is not the name under which people are saved.

Isa 42:8

I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

 

Even if your contradiction of the Hebrew scriptures is ignored,

 

I don't ignore the OT - but rather ackowledge that Jesus fulfills the Messianic and Abrahamic and Davidic promises of the OT. Can you not see this?

I see that you want to read Jesus into everything.

Jesus didn’t fulfill the messianic job requirements.

 

God is eternal and no part of God can die at any time, which leaves only a man dying,

 

Rayskidude:

You have a woefully deficient definition of death. Death = separation. Adam & Eve died spiritually on the day they sinned - because they were separated from God. We all die when our soul/spirit separates from our body , and our soul exists eternally in heaven or hell.

<SNIP>

So Jesus died, when He gave up His Spirit, and His sould/spirit separated from His body and He returned to glory.

I’m sorry that the death of Jesus on the cross leaves you in a bind.

You haven’t addressed the problem.

Jesus was supposed to have died physically, as an animal sacrifice does.

Remember, Jesus died for your sins, or so Christian propaganda says.

You’re covered by his precious blood, not simply his wandering spirit.

Jesus can’t actually be separated from God if he is God.

The dead body on a cross doesn’t save anyone according to the Law.

The death of a God, or any part of God, is impossible because God is eternal.

The soul of Jesus doesn’t exist in Hell, and isn’t paying the eternal price for sin regardless.

 

SO death is not non-existence; it is separation. Which again is why the Bible speaks of a Second Death - not annihilation, but eternal separation from God. You need to think these things through more thoroughly.

My goodness, I apologize for not having a sharp enough mind to recognize how great a teacher you are.

You’ve already declared Jesus is God, so he couldn’t have been separated from God in any substantial way.

And a dead body on a cross isn’t a valid sin sacrifice according to the Law.

You just stated that Jesus returned to glory rather than staying in Hell to serve the sentence for sin, which is eternal damnation and separation from God.

Jesus didn’t atone for anything, either through his dead body or his soul which never stayed in Hell.

[Guest]

Hey, Ray. What is the actual, physical mechanism that enables jesus' death to save us? Why is it that an innocent 3rd party can absolve us of sin? How does this actually work? I'd like a description akin to how you would describe the internal combustion engine. i.e. "When the air is mixed in with the gas, it is sparked by the spark plug, which then sets off a controlled explosion which moves a piston inside the engine which is attached to..."

 

Thank you.

[rayskidude]

Hey, Ray. What is the actual, physical mechanism that enables jesus' death to save us?

 

It's not a physical mechanism - more like an ajudication by a compassionate, gracious, merciful Judge.

 

Why is it that an innocent 3rd party can absolve us of sin? How does this actually work?

 

In the OT, at the Day of Atonement, animals were sacrificed. One was executed, and the death of that animal atoned or covered the guilt of the peoples' sins. This is a temporary 'fix' to the issue of sin.

 

Lev 16:5 And he shall take from the congregation of the people of Israel two male goats for a sin offering, and one ram for a burnt offering.

Lev 16:6 "Aaron shall offer the bull as a sin offering for himself and shall make atonement for himself and for his house.

Lev 16:7 Then he shall take the two goats and set them before the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting.

Lev 16:8 And Aaron shall cast lots over the two goats, one lot for the LORD and the other lot for Azazel.

Lev 16:9 And Aaron shall present the goat on which the lot fell for the LORD and use it as a sin offering,

Lev 16:10 but the goat on which the lot fell for Azazel shall be presented alive before the LORD to make atonement over it, that it may be sent away into the wilderness to Azazel.

Lev 16:11 "Aaron shall present the bull as a sin offering for himself, and shall make atonement for himself and for his house. He shall kill the bull as a sin offering for himself.

Lev 16:14 And he shall take some of the blood of the bull and sprinkle it with his finger on the front of the mercy seat on the east side, and in front of the mercy seat he shall sprinkle some of the blood with his finger seven times.

Lev 16:15 "Then he shall kill the goat of the sin offering that is for the people and bring its blood inside the veil and do with its blood as he did with the blood of the bull, sprinkling it over the mercy seat and in front of the mercy seat.

Lev 16:16 Thus he shall make atonement for the Holy Place, because of the uncleannesses of the people of Israel and because of their transgressions, all their sins. And so he shall do for the tent of meeting, which dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses.

 

The other was termed the scapegoat - and it was released into the wilderness - symbolizing that the peoples' sins were carried away.

 

Lev 16:20 "And when he has made an end of atoning for the Holy Place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall present the live goat.

Lev 16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the people of Israel, and all their transgressions, all their sins. And he shall put them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who is in readiness.

Lev 16:22 The goat shall bear all their iniquities on itself to a remote area, and he shall let the goat go free in the wilderness.

 

Now you might ask "Why blood?"

 

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

 

Blood symbolizes 'life poured out' = death.

 

God in His justice & wisdom has determined that the appropriate punishment for sin is death.

Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.

Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,

Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

 

And by His mercy, God has determined that the life of animals, which are far less valuable than the life of humans - would temporarily atone for sin.

 

But to fully satisfy the wrath of God against sin; a death of infinite worth would be required. The death of a sinful human is not of sufficient value to even pay the debt of our own sin. Thus, Jesus the Messiah, the unique God-Man, Second Person of the Triune Godhead, gave His life as a sacrifice for the sins of all who would believe in Him. Read the Book of Hebrews to see how this all works out - but especially chapters 1-10.

 

But note;

Rom 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Rom 5:7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person--though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die--

Rom 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Rom 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.

Rom 5:11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

 

1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.

1Jn 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

 

1Jn 4:6 We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.

1Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.

1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.

1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1Jn 4:11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.

[mwc]

What does the rest of chapter 16 say?

 

29 "This shall be a

permanent statute for you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month

, you shall humble your souls and not do any work, whether the native, or the alien who sojourns among you;

30 for it is on this day that atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you; you will be clean from all your sins before the LORD.

31 "It is to be a sabbath of solemn rest for you, that you may humble your souls; it is a

permanent statute

.

...

34 "Now you shall have this as a

permanent statute

, to make atonement for the sons of Israel for all their sins once every year." And just as the LORD had commanded Moses, so he did.

This is confusing. This seems to indicate that this was to be done for quite some time. In essence it is a perpetual law. Something to be carried out every new year. I'm not seeing the part that says "You should do this because animals are worth less than humans" or "Repeat until jesus comes." What I do see is (supposedly) "god" saying do this from now on (not until further notice).

 

Now for the "scapegoat" or Azazel. We'll just turn to the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The name of a supernatural being mentioned in connection with the ritual of the Day of Atonement (Lev. xvi.). After Satan, for whom he was in some degree a preparation, Azazel enjoys the distinction of being the most mysterious extrahuman character in sacred literature. Unlike other Hebrew proper names, the name itself is obscure.

 

—Biblical Data:

 

In Lev. xvi. the single allusion to Azazel is as follows: On the tenth day of Tishri (see Atonement Day) the high priest, after first performing the prescribed sacrifices for himself and his family, presented the victims for the sins of the people. These were a ram for a burnt offering, and two young goats for a sin-offering. Having brought the goats before Yhwh at the door of the tabernacle, he cast lots for them, the one lot "for Yhwh" and the other "for Azazel." The goat that fell to Yhwh was slain as a sin-offering for the people. But the goat of Azazel (now usually known as the "scapegoat") was made the subject of a more striking ceremony. The high priest laid his hands upon its head and confessed over it the sins of the people. Then the victim was handed over to a man standing ready for the purpose, and, laden as it was with these imputed sins, it was "led forth to an isolated region," and then let go in the wilderness.J. Jr. J. F

 

—In Biblical, Apocryphal, and Rabbinical Literature:

 

The Rabbis, interpreting "Azazel" as "Azaz" (rugged), and "el" (strong), refer it to the rugged and rough mountain cliff from which the goat was cast down (Yoma 67b; Sifra, Aḥare, ii. 2; Targ. Yer. Lev. xiv. 10, and most medieval commentators).Most modern scholars, after having for some time indorsed the old view, have accepted the opinion mysteriously hinted at by Ibn Ezra and expressly stated by Naḥmanides to Lev. xvi. 8, that Azazel belongs to the class of "se'irim," goat-like demons, jinn haunting the desert, to which the Israelites were wont to offer sacrifice (Lev. xvii. 7 [A. V. "devils"]; compare "the roes and the hinds," Cant. ii. 7, iii. 5, by which Sulamith administers an oath to the daughters of Jerusalem. The critics were probably thinking of a Roman faun).

 

Azazel Personification of Impurity.

 

Far from involving the recognition of Azazel as a deity, the sending of the goat was, as stated by Naḥmanides, a symbolic expression of the idea that the people's sins and their evil consequences were to be sent back to the spirit of desolation and ruin, the source of all impurity. [...] Evidently the figure of Azazel was an object of general fear and awe rather than, as has been conjectured, a foreign product or the invention of a late lawgiver. Nay, more; as a demon of the desert, it seems to have been closely interwoven with the mountainous region of Jerusalem and of ancient pre-Israelitish origin.

 

Leader of the Rebellious Angels.

 

This is confirmed by the Book of Enoch, which brings Azazel into connection with the Biblical story of the fall of the angels, located, obviously in accordance with ancient folk-lore, on Mount Hermon as a sort of an old Semitic Blocksberg, a gathering-place of demons from of old (Enoch xiii.; compare Brandt, "Mandäische Theologie," 1889, p. 38). Azazel is represented in the Book of Enoch as the leader of the rebellious giants in the time preceding the flood; he taught men the art of warfare, of making swords, knives, shields, and coats of mail, and women the art of deception by ornamenting the body, dyeing the hair, and painting the face and the eyebrows, and also revealed to the people the secrets of witchcraft and corrupted their manners, leading them into wickedness and impurity; until at last he was, at the Lord's command, bound hand and foot by the archangel Raphael and chained to the rough and jagged rocks of [Ha] Duduael (= Beth Ḥadudo), where he is to abide in utter darkness until the great Day of Judgment, when he will be cast into the fire to be consumed forever (Enoch viii. 1, ix. 6, x. 4-6, liv. 5, lxxxviii. 1; see Geiger, "Jüd. Zeit." 1864, pp. 196-204). [...] According to Pirḳe R. El. xlvi. (comp. Tos. Meg. 31a), the goat is offered to Azazel as a bribe that he who is identical with Samael or Satan should not by his accusations prevent the atonement of the sins on that day.

Now that we have a better idea of what Azazel, or scapegoats, are about lets just move ahead to chapter 17 and the "blood" thing.

 

But to make my posting really long I want to make a couple of quick stops before verse 11 first.

 

17:3 "Any man from the house of Israel who slaughters an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp, or who slaughters it outside * the camp,

4 and has not brought it to the doorway of the tent of meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD, bloodguiltiness is to be reckoned to that man. He has shed blood and that man shall be cut off from among his people .

5 "The reason is so that the sons of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they were sacrificing in the open field, that they may bring them in to the LORD, at the doorway of the tent of meeting to the priest, and sacrifice them as sacrifices of peace offerings to the LORD.

6 "The priest shall sprinkle the blood on the altar of the LORD at the doorway of the tent of meeting, and offer up the fat in smoke as a soothing aroma to the LORD.

Why this? Because it says that YHWH is making a new rule. That rule says that you can only do sacrifices in the temple. It's almost the same as murder to do your sacrifice in the unauthorized place and fashion. Besides YHWH likes the smell of burnt offerings and if you do them in the wrong places he can't smell them. I wonder if he can smell priest farts?

 

17:7 "They shall no longer sacrifice their sacrifices to the goat demons with which they play the harlot. This shall be a permanent statute to them throughout their generations."'

After taking a quick read on Azazel above it's odd to see this little verse tucked away here...isn't it? Not really, no. How about that it's placed after the "You can't just sacrifice whenever and however you want?" (really it's sandwiched between two sections of this)? Now how about it's placed between two sections of you can't do your own thing and after a yearly "We'll honor the wilderness goat god" ritual? Yeah, it's got to be unrelated.

 

Finally, on to the blood thing:

17:10 'And any man from the house of Israel, or from the aliens who sojourn among them, who eats any blood, I will set My face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people .

11 'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement .'

I think the added verse adds enough context so anyone can see what verse 11 is really about.

 

The rest of your nonsense isn't even worth seriously addressing. An animal can atone for "sin" but not quite. But not at all since it has no effect on the supposed afterlife and since those who sacrificed and those who have never sacrificed any animals to YHWH are pretty much equal in the "atoned" department I say it had no bearing on anything. Maybe they should have killed more? Two turtle doves equal a lamb (if you're poor) so maybe a hundred roaches equal two turtle doves? What about a billion ants? What's the exchange rate on all these critters? If we kill all our animals will that atone for a baby? How about a fetus? That may be enough.

 

The thing is as a person lives they apparently also go into a "sin debt" because even their own life is not even enough to get them out of this whole mess. It's best to abort I guess. His holy loan shark just sets the system up so you have to accept his terms or else. Otherwise you'd think that even your own life would be enough to atone for your own "sins." There's nothing more 1 to 1 than that. I guess "god" doesn't believe in "hate the sin and not the sinner." Pithy may not be his thing (seems pissy is though).

 

mwc

[Guest]

Hey, Ray. What is the actual, physical mechanism that enables jesus' death to save us?

 

It's not a physical mechanism - more like an ajudication by a compassionate, gracious, merciful Judge.

 

 

OK, how does killing an innocent 3rd party qualify as something that came from a "compassionate, gracious, merciful" entity. Seems counter-intuitive to me. I would think a "compassionate, gracious, merciful" solution would be to hold people responsible for their own wrongdoings. Again, how does it actually work? I'm told christ's blood washes me of sin, how is this washing accomplished?

 

And your OT quotes still did not explain to me why this murder of innocents is the only way god can absolve humans of the sins he made us with in the first place.

[rayskidude]

An animal can atone for "sin" but not quite.

 

Did you not read what I said re: atonement thru animal sacrifice - it is a temporary 'covering' of sin, insufficient to pay for sin. Complete absolvement, called propitiation, comes through the death of supreme value - that of Jesus the Messiah, the unique God-Man, Second Person of the Trinity - which completely satifies the righteous wrath of God against sin.

 

The thing is as a person lives they apparently also go into a "sin debt" because even their own life is not even enough to get them out of this whole mess. It's best to abort I guess. His holy loan shark just sets the system up so you have to accept his terms or else. Otherwise you'd think that even your own life would be enough to atone for your own "sins." There's nothing more 1 to 1 than that. I guess "god" doesn't believe in "hate the sin and not the sinner." Pithy may not be his thing (seems pissy is though).

 

Apparently, you've not read the Book of Hebrews, thus your ignorance about how God has dealt mercifully with sin. And when you create a universe, then you can make the rules and decree what is right from what is wrong - since you seem to think you've got a superior system. And why would you think you life is worthy to pay for your sin?

 

If you murder someone, is your life of sufficient value to pay for that sin? Ergo, you should be executed - correct? If not, then how many people does someone kill before their execution becomes sufficient punishment? Ever?

[rayskidude]

OK, how does killing an innocent 3rd party qualify as something that came from a "compassionate, gracious, merciful" entity. Seems counter-intuitive to me. I would think a "compassionate, gracious, merciful" solution would be to hold people responsible for their own wrongdoings. Again, how does it actually work? I'm told christ's blood washes me of sin, how is this washing accomplished?

 

God is both righteously just and graciously loving. God in justice must punish our sin - and He has mercifully accepted the death of another - His own Son, Jesus the Messiah, God Incarnate, Second Person of the Trinity. So the life/death of infinite value delvers us from the peril of our sin. Thus we are washed [metaphorically] in the blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus, thru His gracious love for us, has offerd Himself to pay the debt of our sin. Doesn't the voluntary death of one person in the place of another person demonstrate the ultimate in love?

 

And your OT quotes still did not explain to me why this murder of innocents is the only way god can absolve humans of the sins he made us with in the first place.

 

How did it not explain this principle? The goats for sacrfice and scapegoat - sin payed and removed temporarily until the death of Jesus.

[Deva]

God is both righteously just and graciously loving. God in justice must punish our sin - and He has mercifully accepted the death of another - His own Son, Jesus the Messiah, God Incarnate, Second Person of the Trinity. So the life/death of infinite value delvers us from the peril of our sin. Thus we are washed [metaphorically] in the blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus, thru His gracious love for us, has offerd Himself to pay the debt of our sin. Doesn't the voluntary death of one person in the place of another person demonstrate the ultimate in love?

 

 

I have just got to say how happy I am that I don't believe the above drivel.

 

Where else, my fellow ex-christians, would you ever see these words used together: "Graciously loving - punishment - "

[Ouroboros]

I have just got to say how happy I am that I don't believe the above drivel.

Agree. Through examination the layers exfoliate rapidly, and only an outsider can see how contrived the web of imaginary explanations for the non-existing concepts really are.

 

Where else, my fellow ex-christians, would you ever see these words used together: "Graciously loving - punishment - "

God is good, he only punish people for disobeying his command to love and believe him, and the punishment is only for an eternity. Can you imagine if it was two eternities? That would have been really unfair!

[Deva]

God is good, he only punish people for disobeying his command to love and believe him, and the punishment is only for an eternity. Can you imagine if it was two eternities? That would have been really unfair!

 

Yes Hans. Really, after 9 pages and viewing #176, its obvious that we have not gotten through to Ray one iota. The total absurdity of the atonement, this God that needs to be a sacrifice, etc. This is not the Den, but how long should we let this sort of preaching go on?

[Ouroboros]

Blood sacrifice, that's what the old pagan religions also believed. Sacrifice a goat to God (or gods) to appease them. Funny how the salvation for humanity is based on an old pagan belief.

[Ouroboros]

Wasn't that also a symbolic gesture? Did Pagan's believe the actual dead, bloody goat was what God wanted, or their subservience?

I suspect the early beliefs were just like the Bible states: that life was magically encapsulated in the blood. It's not strange to see that the primitive man would realize that "bleeding out leads to death, hence life is connected to blood." And when the idea of some metaphysical "soul" existing, then I guess they even would think that the soul itself were located in the blood. And if the gods were souls/spirits too (and no bodies at all), how would they eat? How would you give gifts to spirits? They couldn't eat real meat, and there wasn't any way of sending fancy metals or weapons to the spiritual world, but if you sacrificed a soul, that soul would be able to go to the spiritual world, so by killing an animal (spilling its blood) the essence of the animal (its soul/spirit) would go to the gods, and they would be pleased. (Just my ramblings)

 

So was it symbolic in the beginning? I suspect the actual thought or belief that the soul was spilled was a real concept for them, but to give a gift to please the gods were of course a symbolic gesture just like when we give birthday presents. It's the thought that counts, not the price tag.

[NotBlinded]

Wasn't that also a symbolic gesture? Did Pagan's believe the actual dead, bloody goat was what God wanted, or their subservience?

I suspect the early beliefs were just like the Bible states: that life was magically encapsulated in the blood. It's not strange to see that the primitive man would realize that "bleeding out leads to death, hence life is connected to blood." And when the idea of some metaphysical "soul" existing, then I guess they even would think that the soul itself were located in the blood. And if the gods were souls/spirits too (and no bodies at all), how would they eat? How would you give gifts to spirits? They couldn't eat real meat, and there wasn't any way of sending fancy metals or weapons to the spiritual world, but if you sacrificed a soul, that soul would be able to go to the spiritual world, so by killing an animal (spilling its blood) the essence of the animal (its soul/spirit) would go to the gods, and they would be pleased. (Just my ramblings)

 

So was it symbolic in the beginning? I suspect the actual thought or belief that the soul was spilled was a real concept for them, but to give a gift to please the gods were of course a symbolic gesture just like when we give birthday presents. It's the thought that counts, not the price tag.

I think that there are different words for the breath of life and the soul in Hebrew. One is Ruach and the other is Nephesh respectfully. An immaterial soul separate from the body was not fully believed by ancient Hebrews. So, I wonder which is being let from the body when it bleeds? It can't be the soul (Nephesh) because it is in corpses also. It must be the breath of life (Ruach) then which sustains life in a soul (Nephesh). Ok, what happens to the soul then? I'm confused.

[Ouroboros]

I think that there are different words for the breath of life and the soul in Hebrew. One is Ruach and the other is Nephesh respectfully. An immaterial soul separate from the body was not fully believed by ancient Hebrews. So, I wonder which is being let from the body when it bleeds? It can't be the soul (Nephesh) because it is in corpses also. It must be the breath of life (Ruach) then which sustains life in a soul (Nephesh). Ok, what happens to the soul then? I'm confused.

I think that there were different beliefs merged together. One where the blood was the source of life, and the other was breath. Because the same way as bleeding out would result in death, also when someone died they stopped breathing. People at that time were simple in understanding the world. They didn't know what these things really were or why you would stop living like this, so they had to rationalize it somehow to what they could see.

 

I had it in my head in my previous post to mention breathing too, but was too lazy.

 

When language, society, religion, etc grew, then the complexity of these ideas grew as well, and merging of competing ones.

[centauri]

In the OT, at the Day of Atonement, animals were sacrificed. One was executed, and the death of that animal atoned or covered the guilt of the peoples' sins. This is a temporary 'fix' to the issue of sin.

As MWC pointed out, the Day of Atonement was to be observed in perpetuity on an annual basis.

I don’t see Jehovah telling his people that it would be replaced by a new system that relies on an (illegal) human sin sacrifice.

 

Now you might ask "Why blood?"

 

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

 

Blood symbolizes 'life poured out' = death.

<SNIP>

And by His mercy, God has determined that the life of animals, which are far less valuable than the life of humans - would temporarily atone for sin.

Christian revisionism manages to turn this:

Lev 4:35

… and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

 

Into this:

Lev 4:35

… and the priest shall make a temporary atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be temporarily forgiven him.

 

Animal sacrifices were part of the atonement procedure for unintentional sins and were involved in specific guilt offerings.

Excerpt from Rabbi Tovia Singer follows:

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/jesusdeath.html

"Moreover, the sin sacrifice (known in the Jewish scriptures as korban chatat) did not atone for all types of sin, but rather, only for man's most insignificant iniquity: unintentional sins. The sin sacrifice was inadequate to atone for a transgression committed intentionally. The brazen sinner was barred from the sanctuary, and had to bear his own iniquity because of his rebellious intent to sin against God. The Torah teaches this fundamental principle in Numbers 15:27-31.

 

If a person sins unintentionally, then he shall offer a one-year-old female goat for a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who goes astray when he sins unintentionally, making atonement for him that he may be forgiven . . . . The person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people, because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be on him."

 

Forgiveness didn’t always require bloodshed as the Book of Hebrews asserts.

The atonement wasn’t temporary, it resulted in the sin being forgiven.

 

But to fully satisfy the wrath of God against sin; a death of infinite worth would be required. The death of a sinful human is not of sufficient value to even pay the debt of our own sin. Thus, Jesus the Messiah, the unique God-Man, Second Person of the Triune Godhead, gave His life as a sacrifice for the sins of all who would believe in Him. Read the Book of Hebrews to see how this all works out - but especially chapters 1-10.

<SNIP NT propaganda>

Christian revisionism is at work.

There is no “death of infinite worth “ required in the following, nor the death of an animal.

2 Chron 7:14

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

 

This set of preaching points also makes assumptions that are inconsistent with the Hebrew scriptures.

It assumes that God gave faulty instructions on atonement, which didn’t provide full forgiveness.

It assumes that God became a man.

It assumes God changed his rules for salvation along with his rules on sacrifice for the atonement for sin.

It assumes Jesus was qualified for the title of king messiah.

It assumes that one third of God “died” to appease the wrath of God.

[oddbird1963]

Nice little analysis of OT sacrifice, centauri! Kudos!

[mwc]

Apparently, you've not read the Book of Hebrews, thus your ignorance about how God has dealt mercifully with sin.

Why would I refer to a heretical, even apostate, sect of Jews to try to understand how the Jewish god deals with things? That makes no sense to me. You aren't listening to me on christian matters. Nor do I think you listen to heretical sects within the realm xianity. So asking me to look at the OT and then get the resolution from the NT is nonsensical. I won't refer to the xian bible and get the resolution from the book of mormon. It is just as silly. Who is being ignorant here? Please stop telling me to do something you won't do yourself.

 

And when you create a universe, then you can make the rules and decree what is right from what is wrong - since you seem to think you've got a superior system. And why would you think you life is worthy to pay for your sin?

 

If you murder someone, is your life of sufficient value to pay for that sin? Ergo, you should be executed - correct? If not, then how many people does someone kill before their execution becomes sufficient punishment? Ever?

So I've no right to question the "creator?" Well, I'm happy you've posted that. It truly shows how much you intend to listen to anyone as that's a discussion ender in and of itself. If I didn't create a universe then I don't have the right to say anything. End of discussion.

 

I also like that you've managed to link me with being a murderer too. Nice touch. I can't question the rules and there's no way I could ever make up for <spooky voice>murder most foul</spooky voice>. So I guess I'm just plain screwed. I'd better get on the "jesus" train. Woo woo! You've no argument and you had to go here. Just how many people are murderers in your neck of the woods? Perhaps you should move?

 

mwc

[Guest]

Thus we are washed [metaphorically] in the blood of Jesus Christ. Jesus, thru His gracious love for us, has offerd Himself to pay the debt of our sin. Doesn't the voluntary death of one person in the place of another person demonstrate the ultimate in love?

 

Not really, since according to the story, jesus didn't die, he didn't sacrifice anything. He's (supposedly) still alive and ruling in heaven right now. Sweet deal if you ask me. What was it he sacrificed again? A few hours of torment pitted against eternity ruling the universe? Yea, he gave up a lot for me...

 

Again, why is it that an innocent's death is the only way to atone for sin, as opposed to, say, self flagellation or community service? Why does a "compassionate" being require death?

 

Oh, and Phanta, your post #180 was eye opening, thank you. No one, I repeat, no xtian has ever even come close to answering my question before. What you posted makes complete and total sense. I won't stop asking xtians the question however, cause I enjoy watching them squirm for answers...

[dB-Paradox]

I want to jump into this conversation. I notice that Cabbage has only made the one post, but perhaps he/she is still reading all the replies to this thread...maybe.

 

Anyway, I don't know if I would have called myself a typical church-going Christian. If you mean typical church going as in "Sunday Christian", then no, I was not that. I was a deeper rooted man of faith. I studied and read the bible outside church and faithfully defended what I believed to be true against people who were just like I am now. I was passionate about my relationship with Jesus. Oh, sure I had a life outside my faith, but my faith was ultimately who I was. Then I started reading the bible's description of God. The God of Israel, the God of justice, and the God of "I'm gonna kill ya just to make a point".

 

In answering Cabbage's question, I won't set out to disprove the bible per se, but rather the belief structure it is based on. For this example, we'll assume the events recorded in the bible actually happened and are accurately recorded.

 

The story that led me to believe the bible was fallible (which I had previously not believed) was the story of Uzzah and the handling of the ark of the covenant (2 Samuel 6:6-7). In this story, Uzzah reaches out to stabilize the ark because the oxen stumbles. God sees this as an irreverent act and strikes Uzzah down on that very spot. The truth that came to me was (again assuming the story actually happened and is accurately recored) Uzzah died of a heart attack which was mistakenly attributed to God's doing. In this way, the bible is proven wrong in what it teaches, not necessarily in it's factual content.

 

To illustrate something similar in a modern day example, a Christian might say that God answered their prayer for a job, when in actuality, that Christian got the job because they were prepared for the interview, presented themselves well, had self-confidence, and ultimately impressed the employers.

 

Of course, there are sections of the bible that fall into the myth and "totally not true" categories. I'm in the process of debating with Christians on another website about the logic of Joshua's long day and the co-existence of modern man and dinosaurs as they claim has scientific merit. I used to believe that stuff, but honestly, I'm not a scientist, so I don't really know for sure one way or another. But neither do I believe that modern science is working hard to disprove the fundie's point of view.

[Dhampir]

Somehow I think almost no ancient religious practice held much if any symbolic meaning in their origins. It would seem that until philosophy became more sophisticated, such rites held either literal meaning, or no meaning at all. That said, the Jesus myth comes from a time when philosophy had at least started to become sophisticated. To me that means there was about a 50/50 chance that Jesus' death and rebirth could have been intended as a literal thing.

[mwc]

You should read some of the Canaanite rituals from ~1000 years before. They are elegant in their simplicity. The names of (most) of those involved are pretty much literal and what they do during the stories are as well but at the same time they are very symbolic. So you have the story of Baal descending to the underworld (he dies). El is saddened so much by this that he goes through the mourning ritual. He puts on the garments. He cuts himself. He puts on ashes. And so on (I'm not sure I've got the order correct...and the order is important as I'll explain). As the story progresses Baal returns and, long story short, he brings rain with him. Now this is actually a fertility story. The death, the mourning, the return and all the rest. It's an analogy. The gods play out a story and the natural world reflects it. When El does those things to himself he is really preparing the fields. Do you see? He cuts himself (he tills the soil). He puts ash on himself (he fertilizes the soil). And so on. Knowing the story tells a person when and how to prepare the fields. Then Baal comes and rain on the ground (I believe in a sex scene with his sister that now represents the fertile ground...incest was common among gods/royalty but not so much among the "common" people so the story wasn't about promoting incest). These stories played out on more than one level. And it's thought that the priests would act these stories out at the temple at the appropriate times taking on the roles of the gods (which would ensure the "magic" would work). So layer upon layer even in these basic stories.

 

I'm sure not doing this any justice here but hopefully you get the idea.

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

I think that there are different words for the breath of life and the soul in Hebrew. One is Ruach and the other is Nephesh respectfully. An immaterial soul separate from the body was not fully believed by ancient Hebrews. So, I wonder which is being let from the body when it bleeds? It can't be the soul (Nephesh) because it is in corpses also. It must be the breath of life (Ruach) then which sustains life in a soul (Nephesh). Ok, what happens to the soul then? I'm confused.

I had it in my head in my previous post to mention breathing too, but was too lazy.

Sure...you made me get the workout and suffer brain-strain. I see how ya are.