Atonement or Human Sacrifice on the Cross?

[jordanriver]

True. And I try giving people the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't always work. Wonder how you can instantly tell if someone is an honest seeker or not?

discernment

votever dot mins?

i guess just pray for wisdom? but sooner or later , you can usually tell.

[Gnostic Bishop]

of course God prefers obedience over sacrifice.

who succeeded? anybody?

as pointed out in Acts 15

Acts 15:10-11
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.

nobody was able to keep the law, nobody was able to always obey.

Gnostic Bishop, your conclusion = nobody gets saved.

God had to humble the humans who thought they could be "moral" enough to earn salvation,

From Moses to Jesus, as Jesus reminded of the serpent of brass in Numbers, FAITH is what will save:

John 3:14-15
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

thats all, just stare at the thing, thats all JUST TRUST GOD

(referring to the account in Numbers 21)
Numbers 21:6-9
6 And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died.

7 Therefore the people came to Moses, and said, We have sinned, for we have spoken against the Lord, and against thee; pray unto the Lord, that he take away the serpents from us. And Moses prayed for the people.

8 And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent, and set it upon a pole: and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live.

9 And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

If this spoke to what I wrote, I do not see it.

The issue was the idiocy of this notion. "without the shedding blood, no remission of sins".

As above so below.

Do you need blood from your children to forgive their sin?

Regards
DL

[jordanriver]

If this spoke to what I wrote, I do not see it.

The issue was the idiocy of this notion. "without the shedding blood, no remission of sins".

As above so below.

Do you need blood from your children to forgive their sin?

Regards
DL

you so don't get it.

you so don't understand the whole point.

You are calling for a "works" salvation.

then you suggest that my point is that the blood of my children would be good enough (as if)

The whole point is that the humans have to swallow their pride and simply take God's Word for it , stare at the serpent of brass AND DO NOTHING ELSE.

IT is the same as ACCEPT THE DEAL, (Jesus sacrifices HIS blood for your punishment to be paid)
....AND DO NOTHING ELSE.

(God saying, don't even try to earn your worth, you aint good enough, youre blood and your childrens blood aint good enough)


...........
...................ok, the AND DO NOTHING ELSE part refers to salvation, IOW, the part about the hereafter, whether a person's destiny is everlasting life, OR shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2)

the repent and behave part refers to the here and now, to avoid punishment in the here and now
here AND here AND here



while works wont get you everlasting life and avoid everlasting contempt, it will affect your degree of reward in heaven, but that's whole nuther topic

[Doug Shaver]

of course God prefers obedience over sacrifice.

So God says, in effect, "If you do not do what I tell you to do, then you must kill something."

[jordanriver]

So God says, in effect, "If you do not do what I tell you to do, then you must kill something."

not anymore

[robrecht]

Sorry, but you have confused me with someone else. I did not say these things. You seem to be thinking of JohnnyP.

You did not seem to grasp or accept the distinction that I was making between the differing approaches of Irenaeus and Augustine with respect to whether or not Christians believe God needed to change his plan of salvation. The approach of Irenaeus became that of the Eastern Orthodox fathers and theologians and was continued in the West by the Franciscan school of theology, especially as articulated by Duns Scotus. This approach by and large did not make its way into the work of some Protestant theologians until the 20th century, and most fundamentalists, in my opinion, still seem to hold a caricature of the Augustinian approach. Recall that Luther was an Augustinian monk. I apologize if you were indeed aware of this but you kept insisting that Christians worship another God that needed to change his plan of salvation after story of Adam and Eve in the Garden.

So, Norm, now that you realize that I am not JohnnyP, perhaps you can view the above and note the differences between the theological approaches of Irenaeus and Augustine.

[Gnostic Bishop]

you so don't get it.

you so don't understand the whole point.

You are calling for a "works" salvation.

then you suggest that my point is that the blood of my children would be good enough (as if)

The whole point is that the humans have to swallow their pride and simply take God's Word for it , stare at the serpent of brass AND DO NOTHING ELSE.

IT is the same as ACCEPT THE DEAL, (Jesus sacrifices HIS blood for your punishment to be paid)
....AND DO NOTHING ELSE.

(God saying, don't even try to earn your worth, you aint good enough, youre blood and your childrens blood aint good enough)


...........
...................ok, the AND DO NOTHING ELSE part refers to salvation, IOW, the part about the hereafter, whether a person's destiny is everlasting life, OR shame and everlasting contempt. (Daniel 12:2)

the repent and behave part refers to the here and now, to avoid punishment in the here and now
here AND here AND here



while works wont get you everlasting life and avoid everlasting contempt, it will affect your degree of reward in heaven, but that's whole nuther topic

[Gnostic Bishop]

not anymore

God says he does not change.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. ( Hebrews 13:8 )

Regards
DL

[Christianbookworm]

False analogy. It's more like having an aspect of yourself(that's a person) enter the story to make things right.

[seer]

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Regards
DL

No, it's more like: A man comes before the judge, for let's say speeding. But the judge happens to be his father. The father upholds justice and fines his son. But then the judge takes off his robes, comes off the bench and pays the fine. Both justice and mercy are met.

[Christianbookworm]

No, it's more like: A man comes before the judge, for let's say speeding. But the judge happens to be his father. The father upholds justice and fines his son. But then the judge takes off his robes, comes off the bench and pays the fine. Both justice and mercy are met.

Modalism! There's not a perfect analogy though. Why would a Being that exists outside of time have a psyche that's like ours?

[jordanriver]

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Regards
DL

What good child?

There's none good but God

[Christianbookworm]

What good child?

There's none good but God

He's talking about Jesus. Apparently, he thinks Jesus is Batman. (thinking trinity= three separate people, just because DC Comics uses it that way doesn't make it right.)

[bling]

[jordanriver]

God says he does not change.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. ( Hebrews 13:8 )

Regards
DL

what change?
Blood sacrifice for sins before
...and blood sacrifice for sins now.