Atonement or Human Sacrifice on the Cross?

[jordanriver]

We've got a broken record here!

GB is role playing , the part of the " false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" from Galatians 2


He wants us to "earn" our forgiveness of sins instead of accepting the deal that God insists on.

...I have no idea how he thinks that can be accomplished...
But we preach Christ crucified, which seems to be a stumbling block to GB, an offence

but he can just forget about it , because we're going to:
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." (Galatians 5:1)

[jordanriver]

a CLASSIC from 1958 (for anybody who has 44 minutes to spare)

Billy Graham "The Offence of the Cross"

[Christianbookworm]

GB is role playing , the part of the " false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" from Galatians 2


He wants us to "earn" our forgiveness of sins instead of accepting the deal that God insists on.

...I have no idea how he thinks that can be accomplished...
But we preach Christ crucified, which seems to be a stumbling block to GB, an offence

but he can just forget about it , because we're going to:
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." (Galatians 5:1)

Nah. Nothing so interesting. He's just a troll. No exciting evil schemes.

[jordanriver]

The following 2 quotes are why I call what God did murder. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see all are saved without a sacrifice.............


DL

Peter?

Peter preaches the blood of Jesus Christ is required

1 Peter 1:2,18-20 King James Version (KJV)
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

and Paul??, Paul preaches Christ Crucified.

[jordanriver]

Nah. Nothing so interesting. He's just a troll. No exciting evil schemes.

I think you right.

[AlphaBravo]

The Christian text recognizes the inevitability and utility of the crucifixion for atonement but lays the responsibility for the death of the messiah and other martyrs at the feet of evil men. I don't really see how this can be said to institutionalize or condone human sacrifice. At any rate it was not conducted by the Jews or the Romans as a human sacrifice but as the execution of a criminal.

Lk 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

[whag]

The Christian text recognizes the inevitability and utility of the crucifixion for atonement but lays the responsibility for the death of the messiah and other martyrs at the feet of evil men. I don't really see how this can be said to institutionalize or condone human sacrifice. At any rate it was not conducted by the Jews or the Romans as a human sacrifice but as the execution of a criminal.

Lk 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!

Nevertheless, the shedding of human blood was required. If Pilate had pardoned Jesus and the Jews had no legal recourse to have him killed after that, Jesus would still have to be killed somehow. An interesting question is if a traditional burnt offering would have the same effect as the capital punishment. Was there a plan B if Jesus was pardoned?

[AlphaBravo]

Nevertheless, the shedding of human blood was required. If Pilate had pardoned Jesus and the Jews had no legal recourse to have him killed after that, Jesus would still have to be killed somehow. An interesting question is if a traditional burnt offering would have the same effect as the capital punishment. Was there a plan B if Jesus was pardoned?

I don't see how your hypothetical changes the particulars of how it actually happened.

[whag]

I don't see how your hypothetical changes the particulars of how it actually happened.

I don't see how you missed that I was speaking about process. Were precise circumstances required and intentionally aligned from above to effect the propitiation, or would a fully burnt sacrifice, such as the one Abraham intended to perform on Isaac, have effected the same atoning result?

[Gnostic Bishop]

We've got a broken record here!

Yes as no one like to answer this as they know it would show their corrupted morals.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

But it doesn't matter Homer. God, first and foremost, is the one who offended by our sin, and if He is satisfied by the work of Christ, then why does your objection matter in the least?

Because it is not moral to shed your responsibility for what you do and lay it on an innocent man.

Then again, you do not care about your satanic morals. All you care for is to be saved from the prick who condemned you wrongfully in the first place.

You are not much of a Christian or a man.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

look, you said:


so where did I imply God changed when I said "not anymore" in reply to Doug Shaver who said:



WHAT changed?

He required blood before (animal sacrifices)

and we don't have to kill animals anymore , even though He still requires the shedding of blood , because the shedding of blood IS STILL REQUIRED (its the blood of Jesus Christ.)

NOTHING changed.

Only immoral thinkers would think that only the blood of an innocent victim will appease their barbaric God.

Regards
DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

GB is role playing , the part of the " false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage" from Galatians 2


He wants us to "earn" our forgiveness of sins instead of accepting the deal that God insists on.

...I have no idea how he thinks that can be accomplished...
But we preach Christ crucified, which seems to be a stumbling block to GB, an offence

but he can just forget about it , because we're going to:
"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage." (Galatians 5:1)

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

[Gnostic Bishop]

Nevertheless, the shedding of human blood was required. If Pilate had pardoned Jesus and the Jews had no legal recourse to have him killed after that, Jesus would still have to be killed somehow. An interesting question is if a traditional burnt offering would have the same effect as the capital punishment. Was there a plan B if Jesus was pardoned?

If we are to be silly enough to believe that a God would die for his creation, then if death is what is important then dying in any way should be acceptable to God.

Jesus was a suicide. No argument. That or God was his murderer as Jesus was selected even before the potential for sin was created.

Any God who would do such a thing to their son is not much of a father. In fact, he would be quite the immoral coward.

Regards
DL

[AlphaBravo]

Because it is not moral to shed your responsibility for what you do and lay it on an innocent man.

It is not immoral to lay down ones life for a friend. Nor is death the worst thing that can happen to someone.