Disprove The Bible, Not Modern Christianity

[Ouroboros]

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

Yes. I'm evil that way.

[rayskidude]

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.

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.

 

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

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

 

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.

 

Listen, if you want to live under the Old Covenant - go ahead. NO one is stopping you. BTW - are you obeying all those commandments?

 

Deu 28:14 and if you do not turn aside from any of the words that I command you today, to the right hand or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

Deu 28:15 "But if you will not obey the voice of the LORD your God or be careful to do all his commandments and his statutes that I command you today, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.

Deu 28:16 Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.

Deu 28:17 Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl.

Deu 28:18 Cursed shall be the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock.

Deu 28:19 Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.

Deu 28:20 "The LORD will send on you curses, confusion, and frustration in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken me.

 

Deu 29:12 so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the LORD your God, which the LORD your God is making with you today,

Deu 29:13 that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

Deu 29:18 Beware lest there be among you a man or woman or clan or tribe whose heart is turning away today from the LORD our God to go and serve the gods of those nations. Beware lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit,

Deu 29:19 one who, when he hears the words of this sworn covenant, blesses himself in his heart, saying, 'I shall be safe, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart.' This will lead to the sweeping away of moist and dry alike.

Deu 29:20 The LORD will not be willing to forgive him, but rather the anger of the LORD and his jealousy will smoke against that man, and the curses written in this book will settle upon him, and the LORD will blot out his name from under heaven.

Deu 29:21 And the LORD will single him out from all the tribes of Israel for calamity, in accordance with all the curses of the covenant written in this Book of the Law.

Deu 29:22 And the next generation, your children who rise up after you, and the foreigner who comes from a far land, will say, when they see the afflictions of that land and the sicknesses with which the LORD has made it sick--

Deu 29:23 the whole land burned out with brimstone and salt, nothing sown and nothing growing, where no plant can sprout, an overthrow like that of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which the LORD overthrew in his anger and wrath--

Deu 29:24 all the nations will say, 'Why has the LORD done thus to this land? What caused the heat of this great anger?'

Deu 29:25 Then people will say, 'It is because they abandoned the covenant of the LORD, the God of their fathers, which he made with them when he brought them out of the land of Egypt,

Deu 29:26 and went and served other gods and worshiped them, gods whom they had not known and whom he had not allotted to them.

Deu 29:27 Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against this land, bringing upon it all the curses written in this book,

Deu 29:28 and the LORD uprooted them from their land in anger and fury and great wrath, and cast them into another land, as they are this day.'

 

Where are the ten tribes if Israel that were carted off to Assyria? And how are those tribes of Judah doing in there worship of God - when's the last time anyone offered an OT sacrifice to God?

 

So how's that workin' for ya?

[rayskidude]

rayskidude']You need to think these things through more thoroughly.

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.

 

So all sin payment for the Christian (or OT Jew) is symbolic. God doesn't need blood sacrifice. Rather we do, to know fully the seriousness of our transgressions without necessarily having to die ourselves. The death of any sacrifice is not simply symbolic - it os a real death.

 

Certainly, blood sacrifices does communicate to us the grievous nature of our sin. But primarily a death is required as a just punishment for sin, because every sin committed is against an infinitely holy God.

 

Jesus-God's death is a symbolic death...yes? ...Like the symbolic animal deaths? I ask, because it seems God can't die a soul death or be separated from himself, which is the real punishment we would endure. Am I right that God can't die a soul death or be separated from himself (or whatever you think happens to unbelievers when they pay for their sins)? If so, Jesus' sacrifice was not identical to what ours would be, but symbolic. Yes?

 

Jesus the Messiah died a real death. His suffering leading up to the crucifxion was true suffering - both physical and emotional (being abandoned by all His followers). His death was a real death, He really bled and died in an excruciating manner by a means used mainly on common criminals - His divine soul separated from His human body. And just prior to that, Jesus cried out;

 

Mat 27:39 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads

Mat 27:40 and saying, "You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross."

Mat 27:41 So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying,

Mat 27:42 "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him.

Mat 27:43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'"

Mat 27:44 And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.

Mat 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour.

Mat 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

 

Are you able to comment on the pain that comes from being abandoned by your friends in your time of greatest need? Or from being mocked by your enemies while you die a slow, agonizing death? Or from being abandoned by your own father? And what if that relationship was an eternal love relationship of perfect peace, harmony, cooperation, etc - to have that relationship ripped away - through no fault of your own, but because of the love you have for others that you'd sacrifice yourself to save others - can you comment on the pain of that kind of death?

 

All of this symbolic sacrifice (slaughter of animals, mess of blood, God "dying"_ is not to balance the sin in some cosmic way, really...but rather to impress in humans the best way possible without actually killing them for ever wrong they do of the severity of their transgression, and so drive them to transforming change, both as individuals and as a people. Is that it?

 

There is no symbolic balancing for sin - the sin debt must be paid in full, and the debt of sin can only be propitiated by a qualified donor. Propitiation is the complete satisfying of the just wrath of God against sin. Jesus' real death is that propitiation.

 

Joh 19:28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), "I thirst."

Joh 19:29 A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth.

Joh 19:30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

[Guest]

 

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 jesus didn't give his life; he's still alive in heaven right now, according to xtian beliefs. He didn't sacrifice anything other than a few hours of earthly torment, which, inside of eternity, is really just a stone in his shoe. jesus didn't give up shit...

 

Hell, I would do what jesus did in a heartbeat. Come to earth and live for 33 years, get arrested, beaten and "killed", only to be raised from the dead and given the power to rule humanity and the universe? Where do I sign up? Sounds like a sweet deal!

[Guest Davka]

Propitiation is the complete satisfying of the just wrath of God against sin. Jesus' real death is that propitiation.

 

How is God's wrath against sin "just'?

 

- God created everything. Everything that was created in heaven or on Earth was created by God. Nothing exists that was not made by the hand of God. That's what the Wholly Babble tells us.

 

- Therefore God created sin. "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isaiah 45:7

 

(BTW, I looked that verse up in Hebrew because I noticed other translations don't use the word "evil." The word in Hebrew is ra, which is - evil. Bad. Opposite of good.)

 

Even if you want to argue Isaiah 45, there can be no denying that the ultimate responsibility for sin and evil lies with Bible God. He created everything with perfect knowledge. Bible God cannot claim that he did not know what Adam and Eve would do:

 

- Jesus was "slain from the foundation of the world" (Revelation 13:8).

 

- Therefore God knew from the foundation of the world (i.e. before creating life) that a sacrifice for sin would be needed.

 

- Therefore God knew before creating Adam and Eve that they would sin.

 

And God is pissed off about this? That's absurd! If I make something with full knowledge of what the consequences will be, how can I possibly have "just wrath" about those consequences?

 

Christianity does not, cannot, and will not deal with the implications of an omniscient God.

[Neon Genesis]

 

But jesus didn't give his life; he's still alive in heaven right now, according to xtian beliefs. He didn't sacrifice anything other than a few hours of earthly torment, which, inside of eternity, is really just a stone in his shoe. jesus didn't give up shit...

 

Hell, I would do what jesus did in a heartbeat. Come to earth and live for 33 years, get arrested, beaten and "killed", only to be raised from the dead and given the power to rule humanity and the universe? Where do I sign up? Sounds like a sweet deal!

It kind of gives new meaning to the phrase "deus ex machina." And is it just me or is Ray overly-obsessed with the Trinity? It just seems like in almost every other post Ray makes, he pimps the Truine gawd, even in posts that have nothing to do with the Trinity.

[centauri]

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.

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.

 

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

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

 

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.

 

Listen, if you want to live under the Old Covenant - go ahead. NO one is stopping you. BTW - are you obeying all those commandments?

Listen, you’re the one preaching and expecting people not to notice all the inconsistencies that you preach.

The amazing part is that the inconsistencies displayed by your replacement theology aren’t from outside the Bible, they’re found within it, something that you work very hard to ignore.

The new covenant as defined in Jer 31 has nothing to do with Jesus.

It has nothing to do with belief in a human sacrifice dying for your sins.

 

And how are those tribes of Judah doing in there worship of God - when's the last time anyone offered an OT sacrifice to God?

Didn’t you bother to read the article by Rabbi Tovia Singer?

Were you too busy preaching your replacement theology?

[rayskidude]

What happens when the debt is not paid (before Jesus)? Ok. Thanks for the direction.

 

I'm not sure where we are with all this - but please allow me to note that in Gen 3:15, God promised to Adam & Eve that He would send One that would defeat Satan and the affects of sin; And as a temporary means of atoning for (covering over) sin until the death of Jesus the Messiah, God instituted a variety of sacrifices.

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

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.

 

So I'm half understanding you in my comment. The blood sacrifice does communicate something to us, symbolically. Ok.

 

I would say that God has instituted a system whereby He will accept the substitutionary death of another as a just recompense for our sin. In the OT God set up a system of animal sacrifices to atone for sin. Sacrifices communicate that we acknowledge the actual guilt of our own sin, it communicates that we believe that because of our sin against God we owe Him a just recompense; and for the sacrifice we will give one of the most valuable possessions (a prized animal) from our flock - indicating the value we place on our relationship with God.

 

The other part is a punishment. Ok. Are we punished, through the animal sacrifice, or is the punishment felt by the animal? (Or both?) If we are punished, is it both actual and symbolic, or just one of the two?

 

People are punished by the fact that (1) they have offended the God who created us, to whom we owe our very existence; (2) for their sin, they would willingly sacrifice an animal that was of high value to them. The punishment is real, but by God's mercy to us, He has stated that He will take a substutute for us. SO a ram was the substitute for Isaac. But certainly, the animal takes the physical punishment that is due to people.

 

Does something grievous happen to God when we sin, that all of this is necessary? Does He become unbalanced? Unwhole? What is it about the animal's death that helps Him get better from whatever our sin did to Him?

 

God does not become unbalanced or unwhole; but He does exhibit His just & righteous anger when anyone sins, but in addition, God is grieved by our sin. Even earthly parents grieve when they see their children conducting themselves in ways that are unwise or harmful.

Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

Gen 6:6 And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.

Psa 78:40 How often they rebelled against him in the wilderness and grieved him in the desert!

Psa 78:41 They tested God again and again and provoked the Holy One of Israel.

Mat 23:37 "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!

Eph 4:29 Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.

Eph 4:30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.

 

Or are we the only ones harmed by our sin in this relationship?

 

I would say we are the only ones 'harmed' by sin. I understand that these issues are difficult to comprehend. We see these sacrifices as extreme, and wonder why a God of love would require such gross things to remove and recompense sin. It's tough to picture all the blood being spilt and spread around in the Temple, imagine the smell, the noise, the commotion, the sorrow, etc. Everyone has some level of difficulty in putting this all together. But I think the issue for us is that we are sinners by nature, we know how easy it is to sin - sometimes with no forethought - it just is a part of us. Therefore, IMHO, I think it's easy for us to excuse sin - "It could happen to anyone of us" and how often do we repeat "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."

 

However, God is infinitely holy - which none of us can understand. God is so "other than" us, especially regarding sin, that we can't fathom the need for all this sacrificing, and the need for it to be so precise. But we're not God - and if God says that this is what is really required to atone for sin and turn aside His righteous anger - who am I to disagree with or question my Creator & my Redeemer; He who is highly exalted and glorious beyond anything I can comprehend?

 

I will respond to the other parts of your post in a second post - or I'll get rejected. I appreciate your patience with me.

[rayskidude]

I get that his death was real just as the animal deaths we discussed previously were real. I not asking if his death was fake, but rather if it is symbolic in what it did for us people and our sins just as the animal deaths were.

 

I have failed to understand your question - that's my fault. I'm trying to understand what a 'symbolic death' is >> Jesus did not die to only symbolize God's love for us, or only to symbolize the serious nature of sin - though it certainly does communicate those things. But when Jesus the Messiah died, He actually satisfied God's just wrath completely >> and Jesus actually purchased (redeemed from slavery to sin) a people for Himself.

 

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Since our sins have been punished already by the death of Jesus Christ - there remains no punishment for the sins of any believer.

 

Eph 1:5 he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will,

Eph 1:6 to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved.

Eph 1:7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,

Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.

Tit 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,

Tit 2:14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

Rev 1:5 and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood

Rev 5:8 And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Rev 5:9 And they sang a new song, saying, "Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation,

Rev 5:10 and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth."

 

His father abandoned him. You mean that father that was Jesus himself abandoned him? See, this is the kind of thing, which has always confused me about Christianity. Jesus is God. But he's also God's son. So he can abandon...himself. This has always, since I was a couple years old, sounded totally incomprehensible to me. also, I'm pretty sure Jesus, as God, was powerful enough to zap himself off the cross in his suffering. Would you disagree?

 

This is indeed a mystery - but God exists as a Trinity. SO yes, Jesus the Son and the Father (and the Holy Spirit) are One God. But Jesus and the father are separate and distinct Persons. And, I would say from the Biblical data, that the Father did abandon His Son, because Jesus had become "sin for us". Could Jesus have come down from the cross - yes, as He stated to Pilate, He could call down ten legion of angels. But He died to save us from our sins.

 

He did not need his friends for that. In fact, it sounds like it was actually his biggest need, in order to put in place the new covenant, that his friends and enemies do exactly what they did. They played their parts perfectly, and any other behavior would have brought about failure of the new covenant. Do you disagree? Was there another option for putting in place the new covenant, where Jesus' friends would act differently and stick by him? How were they not playing their parts perfectly in putting in place the new covenant? Would it have worked just as well if His people had not forsaken Jesus?

 

Your correct in saying all this was as God had planned and was necessary - but that does not take away from the fact that Jesus actually died, was separated for a time from His Father, and truly suffered and died for our sins. Everything went according to plan. See Eph 1:3-14.

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.

 

Why this string of emotion-laden questions? Are you smacking me down? I wasn't attacking you in my last post. I was trying to understand the nature of sacrifices. I don't understand this stuff. I never have. Why are you so quick to smack me? I know you get vehemently attacked here, but I wasn't doing such a thing in my post. If that's not your issue, I'm sorry I'm a woman, but you aren't going to silence me. If that's not your issue, and you're just an arrogant bully, how much ministering do you think that will do? Your tone is counter-productive to that, and so is your finger pointing.

 

Please forgive - my purpose was not to smack down, but to try and get us all to consider what actually happened on the cross. These things are not easy to face, and I would say that very few people - believers and unbelievers alike - don't think sufficiently about what happened during those six hours. SO my questions were to myself and to everyone who reads these posts. I am truly sorry that I have offended you - I will take greater care to answer only to you re: your posts in the future.

 

I thought you might find my feedback a gift, and I have nothing to lose except maybe you will see the error of your ways and address me respectfully, and actually help me learn about the Bible:

 

Again, I offer my apologies and ask for your forgiveness. Though I considerd my purpose was to provoke thought on the crucifixion, I was obvously wrong in how I handled myself and in how I addressed you.

 

It takes a pretty special Christian to take on with grace the testimony of hurt or frustration or abuse given by some non-Christians, which is largely what one finds at this forum. You aren't one of these Christians. Have you ever read any of the writings of Evangelical minister John Rankin? He long ago recognized that how one delivers the word of God and presents himself as a Christian is as important as what one says. Your delivery is a put-off. I'm feeling pretty defensive right now, and hope there are kinder, humbler, more emotionally confident Christians out there to help me. I'm pretty sure you don't actually give a shit about me in any way, shape, or form. I see someone eager to feel powerful in his faith, rather than be truly powerful in compassion and humble confidence. That string of mighty, emotionally-laden questions you offered was meant to smack me down, not to share ideas, or help a hurting or confused person.

 

I've not read John Rankin, but I certainly agree with what he has said. The Gospel itself is an offense to many people - because it places us all in a state of sin, with no recourse to redeem ourselves. We're completely at the mercy of God - and we can only cry out to Him for mercy. Ergo, we are not to be offensive in any way re; our presentation of God's truth. I have failed in that - which I regret. I do promise to address you with respect in the future.

 

I can only say that I do care - and every Sunday I think; "I wish the folks at 'ex-C.net' could be here today, to worship with us, to read God's word with us, to sing with us, to hear the word preached with us, to fellowship with us, to experience Christian love as I have. I do sense that a number of folks have been hurt in the past - and I regret that churches have done that.

 

If I'm right and your primary goal is to solidify your own position in your own mind and exchange blows day after day, you're doing a bang-up job. But if your goal is any kind of ministry, I hope you will consider my testimony, for my ear is now closed to you.

 

I hope that's not true - I'd like to continue the conversation.

[rayskidude]

Didn’t you bother to read the article by Rabbi Tovia Singer?

 

Yes I did, but Rabbi Singer left out a few things. Re: that a sacrifice must be done only on the altar;

Lev 16:27 And the bull for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be carried outside the camp. Their skin and their flesh and their dung shall be burned up with fire.

 

And note what the Book of Hebrews states about the death of Jesus the Messiah;

Heb 13:11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp.

Heb 13:12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

 

 

And re: that Hosea teaches that prayer of confession alone atones for sin, please note from God's Law;

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 16:18 Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and some of the blood of the goat, and put it on the horns of the altar all around.

Lev 16:19 And he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and consecrate it from the uncleannesses of the people of Israel.

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.

 

If just confession was sufficient to atone for sin - then why did God command Aaron to confess all the iniquities and transgressions and sins of the people and place them on the scapegoat - AND still require the sacrifice of bulls and goats?

[centauri]

Didn’t you bother to read the article by Rabbi Tovia Singer?

 

Yes I did, but Rabbi Singer left out a few things. Re: that a sacrifice must be done only on the altar;

Lev 16:27 And the bull for the sin offering and the goat for the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Holy Place, shall be carried outside the camp. Their skin and their flesh and their dung shall be burned up with fire.

When was Jesus sacrificed on the altar and his skin and flesh burned up?

Jesus wasn’t a valid sacrifice for sin, his sacrifice wasn’t performed according to the stipulations for individual or communal atonement, and there was no Levitical priest presiding over the sacrifice.

 

And note what the Book of Hebrews states about the death of Jesus the Messiah;

Heb 13:11 For the bodies of those animals whose blood is brought into the holy places by the high priest as a sacrifice for sin are burned outside the camp.

Heb 13:12 So Jesus also suffered outside the gate in order to sanctify the people through his own blood.

The Book of Hebrews can’t be trusted for a variety of reasons.

It assumes Jesus was a valid king messiah even though he didn’t have the pedigree and didn’t perform the basic job requirements.

It makes a false statement in Heb 9:22 by asserting that without bloodshed, there is no forgiveness of sin.

The sacrifice of Jesus does not comply with the stipulations for such a sacrifice, which the Book of Hebrews ignores, attempting instead to undermine God’s prior system.

It also claims Jesus was a high priest, creating a new priesthood in an attempt to circumvent God’s promise to the Levites and violating his definition of the new covenant.

It rips the Old Testament scripture out of context in Heb 1:5 in an attempt to validate Jesus as a special son of God.

The Book of Hebrews is propaganda designed to promote a replacement theology, which is, as you would say…a huge slap in the face of God.

 

And re: that Hosea teaches that prayer of confession alone atones for sin, please note from God's Law;

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 16:18 Then he shall go out to the altar that is before the LORD and make atonement for it, and shall take some of the blood of the bull and some of the blood of the goat, and put it on the horns of the altar all around.

Lev 16:19 And he shall sprinkle some of the blood on it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it and consecrate it from the uncleannesses of the people of Israel.

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.

 

If just confession was sufficient to atone for sin - then why did God command Aaron to confess all the iniquities and transgressions and sins of the people and place them on the scapegoat - AND still require the sacrifice of bulls and goats?

That’s the whim of God.

The Bible says that a contrite heart and repenting of sin, without animal sacrifice, does provide forgiveness.

The temple and sacrificial system were in place when Jesus died.

If Jesus really was a valid sacrifice for all sins, then he has to comply with the rules.

Jesus wasn’t a goat and is depicted as a Passover lamb, which isn’t a sin sacrifice.

He wasn’t slain according to the rules, nor was he released into the wilderness as a scapegoat.

Animal sacrifices are part of the atonement process for personal unintentional sins and on the Day on Atonement two goats are involved, with one being killed as part of the atonement procedure the Holy Place, the tent of meeting, and the altar.

If God calls for an annual event to make communal atonement that involves a live animal being released into the wilderness, carrying the sins of the people, then those are the rules.

The Rabbi states and supports with scripture that when the sacrificial system isn’t functioning, prayer and a contrite heart will substitute.

If you think God is contradicting himself by requiring this annual event, then that’s a dilemma for you to resolve because you’re a believer.

And if Jesus is God, then Jesus is contradicting himself.

[mwc]

I'm not sure where we are with all this - but please allow me to note that in Gen 3:15, God promised to Adam & Eve that He would send One that would defeat Satan and the affects of sin; And as a temporary means of atoning for (covering over) sin until the death of Jesus the Messiah, God instituted a variety of sacrifices.

Gen 3:15 I will put enmity between you (Satan) and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."

You're reading your theology in where it doesn't belong. The reference in Genesis is to a talking snake.

 

But let's go your way. Right then. At that moment in time is when they should have killed "jesus" and tossed "Satan" (snake) into the fire. But instead neither happen and instead the flood happens (which doesn't work at all) and then we get the Law which is all the fuss that you're going on about now. The xian idea of needing the law to know about sinning and all that crap. We don't need to know of that. Kill "jesus" in Genesis and be done with it. Toss the snake in the fire and avoid the "giants" and the mess with the flood. No need for the law. No sacrifices. No substitutions. No "faith." No bullshit. And only a few people at risk. Tops.

 

But that's not part of the "plan." I know. I'm sure there are some great reasons which we don't know but probably involve free will and appreciating things and nonsense like that.

 

I would say that God has instituted a system whereby He will accept the substitutionary death of another as a just recompense for our sin. In the OT God set up a system of animal sacrifices to atone for sin. Sacrifices communicate that we acknowledge the actual guilt of our own sin, it communicates that we believe that because of our sin against God we owe Him a just recompense; and for the sacrifice we will give one of the most valuable possessions (a prized animal) from our flock - indicating the value we place on our relationship with God.

Wow. Just wow. I am simply amazed that a bunch of people set themselves up as priests. Came up with a system where people would give them the choice products from their farms/labor and then thousands of years later people would still buy into this system as being "heaven sent." I mean. Wow. It boggles the mind.

 

People are punished by the fact that (1) they have offended the God who created us, to whom we owe our very existence; (2) for their sin, they would willingly sacrifice an animal that was of high value to them. The punishment is real, but by God's mercy to us, He has stated that He will take a substutute for us. SO a ram was the substitute for Isaac. But certainly, the animal takes the physical punishment that is due to people.

Your "god" is petty is it is "offended" by humans being what we are. I offered a real "solution" above. Once mythical "sin" came to be then your "god" should have made the very sacrifice needed to obliterate it. If it cannot tolerate "sin" and the only way to remove it is via this strange sacrifice then there's no need to wait. Even if time is perceived differently by it I would think that it still counts the same as we do. It could see that only two humans and 1/3 of the angels were tainted. No time like the present. Kill "jesus." Place hades/death, the snake and his pals into the lake of fire. Now the humans are clean again. Everything is as it should be. Only 1/3 of the angels perished (which should make it sad) but no humans. Not a single human went to the lake of fire. No animals are used as blood sacrifice. No misuse of this creation. Now they can multiply in this sin free world though they are no longer in paradise and snakes don't have legs. Oh well. You can't win them all. But "god" failed on a massive level. One that cannot be explained. And every second that passes where the world does not end allows for more destruction not "salvation."

 

Your "god" offends me with its sin against us. But that's like being offended by a comic book character...

 

 

and how often do we repeat "He who is without sin, cast the first stone."

If the woman broke the law, and I believe we are to assume she did, then she should have been stoned. If only those without "sin" could stone her then "jesus" surely should have done so or else he broke the law. If he can forgive "sin" outright, ignoring his own law, then could have done so to everyone and didn't need to do anything on any cross.

 

mwc

[mwc]

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?

What's funny is I'm watching rayskidude trip over himself trying to explain this mess to you and he's just never going to be able to do it. It's not possible.

 

I can offer you a quickie overview of the Marcionite version which does actually make sense of all this mess.

 

The god of the OT was/is the creator god. Everything is basically just how you know it. Now since he made everything he can destroy it too. That's his privilege. Now, unknown to this god (he's known as the Demiurge...I hope I'm spelling that right), there is another god above him. The "true" god. Now the true god wants to fix things so he sends down his christ. This is Jesus. The creator god doesn't realize who this is and, through a series of events, gets him killed. This creates a debt since Jesus is not his creation he has no right to kill him. He had to die so that this debt could be created and so the Demiurge could be held responsible. So things are worked out between these two gods for the payment of this debt. Jesus works as the payment. So those who believe in Jesus escape from the Demiurge and go to the other god.

 

So now you can see how the whole payment system starts to work out. How Jesus' dying is a sacrifice. How it is a payment (or ransom). Why believing in him actually moves you from category A to category B. All the silly xian doctrines that simply don't make sense with a single, all-loving, all-knowing, all-everything god start to make a lot of sense when you add the Demiurge into the picture (as opposed to the devil/Satan). The Marcionite/gnostic version of the religion makes lots of sense in a lot of ways that the orthodoxy simple never can.

 

(Hopefully this is all pretty close to being right. It's all from the top of my head. ).

 

mwc

[Guest]

It makes a lot of sense. I always thought the gnostic position was way more tenable than the modern xtian one...

[Ouroboros]

I always though God doth protest too much about being the be-all and end-all of everything or else; bully behavior arises from some kind of insecurity, deception or lie.

And it is reflected in his followers as well.

[Shyone]

In fact, Neon Genesis, that's not contradiction. The commandment "You shall not murder" had specific meaning, that left the way open for the killing in war or as capital punishment.

Whatever broadening of application it may have had in later years, its basic prohibition was against killing, for whatever cause, under whatever circumstances, and by whatever method, a fellow-member of the covenant community. - - What is certain is that רצח describes a killing of human beings forbidden by Yahweh to those who are in covenant with him. The use of such a specialized term in the specific context of the Decalogue leaves the way open for the killing of the Yahweh-war or capital punishment, both of which are of course permitted by the OT, and also sets apart other uses of רצח by relating them inevitably to the obligations of the covenant with Yahweh. (John Durham, World Biblical Commentary, Volume 3: Exodus)

That is morally reprehensible. Capital punishment for infants? Jesus, your head is screwed on wrong.

 

And if you say the commandment prohibits murder, but murder is by definition illegal killing, then God is saying "Don't kill if it is against the law."

 

Have you even considered that the soldiers slaughtered an entire village and justified it ex post facto by saying, "God told us to!"

 

Or that the entire Bible was written by Humans to justify the unjustifiable, punish who they wanted to (including Homosexuals and disobedient children - although I do think executing brats would... no, never mind), and maintain their status?

 

Do YOU live by God's "example"?

[Ouroboros]

In fact, Neon Genesis, that's not contradiction...

That is morally reprehensible. ...

Just an update. The last we heard from Badger was that he had a bad encounter with another fundamentalist Christian, and realized he had some things to think over, apologized, and left.

[Shyone]

In fact, Neon Genesis, that's not contradiction...

That is morally reprehensible. ...

Just an update. The last we heard from Badger was that he had a bad encounter with another fundamentalist Christian, and realized he had some things to think over, apologized, and left.

Being the new guy, I read the old threads like they were written today. I should read the entire thread and only respond if no one else has raised the issue I have a problem with, but reading it for the first time is so immediate.

 

I'm about caught up, so that won't happen again - I hope.

 

People do change. That's a big lesson I'm learning. I have mainly had contact with hard atheists and dyed-in-the-wool Christians, so the very idea of changing one's mind is a novelty (other than myself, of course). I guess I'm not the only one. How about that!

[Ouroboros]

I'm about caught up, so that won't happen again - I hope.

No problem. This happens quite frequently.

 

People do change. That's a big lesson I'm learning. I have mainly had contact with hard atheists and dyed-in-the-wool Christians, so the very idea of changing one's mind is a novelty (other than myself, of course). I guess I'm not the only one. How about that!

Some people change. Some don't. Those who don't, think that no one changes. While those who do change, think anyone can change. Probably both are wrong.

[rayskidude]

All the silly xian doctrines that simply don't make sense with a single, all-loving, all-knowing, all-everything god start to make a lot of sense when you add the Demiurge into the picture (as opposed to the devil/Satan). The Marcionite/gnostic version of the religion makes lots of sense in a lot of ways that the orthodoxy simple never can.

 

I don't mean any offense - but is this a serious comment, or sarcasm?

 

If serious - you actually think that throwing an ignorant 'creator demiurge' into the mix turns nonsense into sensible? This demiurge doesn't know about the true God, doesn't know who Jesus is - and so after his major league screw-up works out a deal with the 'true God' so that his huge mistake is flipped around to be a payment? And all this, after-the-fact?

 

This makes sense?

 

Oh, OK, I guess.

[rayskidude]

I always though God doth protest too much about being the be-all and end-all of everything or else; bully behavior arises from some kind of insecurity, deception or lie.

 

Phanta

 

Or could it be that He's motivated by love & grace, and He's just reminding people of the truth and instructing them to acknowledge reality? And He knows that when people pursue life apart from Him - they consign themsleves to an insignificant, meaningless life?

 

Jer 2:11 Has a nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods? But my people have changed their Glory for that which does not profit.

Jer 2:12 Be appalled, O heavens, at this; be shocked, be utterly desolate, declares the LORD,

Jer 2:13 for my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns that can hold no water.

 

Jer 9:23 Thus says the LORD: "Let not the wise man boast in his wisdom, let not the mighty man boast in his might, let not the rich man boast in his riches,

Jer 9:24 but let him who boasts boast in this, that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD who practices steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth. For in these things I delight, declares the LORD."

[Guest Davka]

All the silly xian doctrines that simply don't make sense with a single, all-loving, all-knowing, all-everything god start to make a lot of sense when you add the Demiurge into the picture (as opposed to the devil/Satan). The Marcionite/gnostic version of the religion makes lots of sense in a lot of ways that the orthodoxy simple never can.

 

I don't mean any offense - but is this a serious comment, or sarcasm?

 

If serious - you actually think that throwing an ignorant 'creator demiurge' into the mix turns nonsense into sensible? This demiurge doesn't know about the true God, doesn't know who Jesus is - and so after his major league screw-up works out a deal with the 'true God' so that his huge mistake is flipped around to be a payment? And all this, after-the-fact?

 

This makes sense?

 

Oh, OK, I guess.

 

It makes as much sense as a "loving God" who is filled with wrath at his created "children" for behaving like children.

 

It makes at least as much sense as a "God" who is omnipotent and omniscient, yet refuses to take responsibility for the pre-destined outcome of his own actions, instead blaming the pot for being the way he made it.

 

And it makes a whole lot more sense than a "God" who allows his "children" to beat the crap out of each other for millenia without doing anything about it other than issue the occasional stern warning, or killing everyone in sight.

 

God the Father is dysfunctional. Where the hell is the Department of Social Services when you really need them?

[mwc]

I don't mean any offense - but is this a serious comment, or sarcasm?

 

If serious - you actually think that throwing an ignorant 'creator demiurge' into the mix turns nonsense into sensible? This demiurge doesn't know about the true God, doesn't know who Jesus is - and so after his major league screw-up works out a deal with the 'true God' so that his huge mistake is flipped around to be a payment? And all this, after-the-fact?

 

This makes sense?

 

Oh, OK, I guess.

I'm serious.

 

Why does the "creator" have to know about any god that is above him that doesn't wish to be known? According to the bible this very creator was not known to anyone that it did not wish to be known to. That seems to be perfectly logical and acceptable. So why is it suddenly unacceptable for another, more powerful, god to play the same game? If the creator god can hide from those less power that it than another god can hide from that creator god. There is nothing inconsistent here.

 

Why should it know who "jesus" is?

 

The universal god, the god beyond the creator essentially, owns the territory that the creator god exists within and all that the his creation exists within. So, just like the creator god himself, has dominion over those things within his territory the greater god has dominion over his territory. This includes the creator god. Obviously the creator understands this and since he has destroyed the property of his superior he knows that he must do something to make it right. The agreement, the covenant, is how this is accomplished.

 

I hate to tell you but as silly as this sounds it's no worse than being told, AFTER I AM BORN, that I have a sin DEBT that I can never pay and so I MUST accept a certain set of beliefs or I will go to a place of PUNISHMENT FOREVER. These are all things that I have no knowledge of. A god that is unrevealed. A debt. All after the fact. And I must accept or else. And YOU are arguing for it.

 

So how is this any different? It's not.

 

mwc

[Guest]

All the silly xian doctrines that simply don't make sense with a single, all-loving, all-knowing, all-everything god start to make a lot of sense when you add the Demiurge into the picture (as opposed to the devil/Satan). The Marcionite/gnostic version of the religion makes lots of sense in a lot of ways that the orthodoxy simple never can.

 

I don't mean any offense - but is this a serious comment, or sarcasm?

 

If serious - you actually think that throwing an ignorant 'creator demiurge' into the mix turns nonsense into sensible? This demiurge doesn't know about the true God, doesn't know who Jesus is - and so after his major league screw-up works out a deal with the 'true God' so that his huge mistake is flipped around to be a payment? And all this, after-the-fact?

 

This makes sense?

 

Oh, OK, I guess.

 

It makes much more sense than the orthodox stance of an all knowing all powerful entity that creates a faulty race of beings (knowingly), then gets mad at the fact that he made them faulty, so he condemns them all to death and eternal torture unless they believe in his zombie son without any evidence.

 

I don't think anyone is saying it actually makes sense; we're just saying it explains the inconsistencies and problems much better than the traditional view.

[Shyone]

 

It makes much more sense than the orthodox stance of an all knowing all powerful entity that creates a faulty race of beings (knowingly), then gets mad at the fact that he made them faulty, so he condemns them all to death and eternal torture unless they believe in his zombie son without any evidence.

 

I don't think anyone is saying it actually makes sense; we're just saying it explains the inconsistencies and problems much better than the traditional view.

That's the way theology works. Given a delimma, the solution is derived from thin air. Consider the Catholic doctrines regarding Mary. We don't have anything from scripture regarding her early life or her life after the crucifixion, but given what the theologians wanted to believe about her they invented immaculate conception and the Assumption. It just sounds so much better than to think that she was an ordinary girl who died and whose corpse rotted.

 

The Marcionites weighed the probabilities that 1) God was a mean vengeful SOB in the OT and a nice god in the NT and 2) they were two different gods, and decided that they just couldn't accept the cruelty of the OT god as consistent with the nature of the god of the NT.

 

How many people have left religion because they could not stomach the amoral behavior of the OT God?

 

With two gods, the old "bad" is one now subdued or destroyed by the "nice" god, problem solved!

 

Like a soap opera, the story is made up, and other than trying for a consistent plot line, anything is possible.

 

Even coming back to life. It happens all the time in soap operas.