Unbelievers - You're dead and before God on Judgement Day

[Smalcald]

I think your problem comes from a lack of imagination and understanding of the mysteries of our faith. It is not some sort of bank teller "deal".

Death sits on our shoulders and the sin, which has infected us all from the very beginning. Our creator wanted to show us how to love, how to defeat death and sin, which are real. The way forward was an attempt to show us the Way. So a creator Being made Himself of no account humbled Himself to us, and we did not listen, we didn't want to hear it, and so we killed Him. But by not running away not smashing all of Israel, but instead humbling Himself on the cross we see the ultimate victory, we also see that mercy triumphs over judgement, and in the end love defeats death, and it was defeated in a spiritual and importantly literal way.

I don't and nobody fully understands the mystery of the cross, yet it is extremely compelling. Sure Christ could have simply sent His angels to weak havoc or to force us into line, but would that really do anything? It is not in God's nature to do that, but instead to show love. I believe becuase I want to believe, not becuase I am scared into following, which is why we needed the cross.

As far as sacrifice goes, love is sacrifice, and I think it was us who demanded a blood sacrifice, but on that I am speculating.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Your asking a complicated question Jugger.

I believe the question as to why God had to make an offering or sacrifice lay within this scripture, although there are many others;

1Co

[undone]

I would encourage all of you to read Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science.

Well, I just made it through the 50+ pages of this essay and I say it's well worth the time.

Has anybody else read it?

I'll get the next one tomorrow.

Okay, I've read the second. It repeats and summarizes a few of the points in the first, but certainly not all. It also sheds some light on the suffering of mankind and the suffering of Christ on the Cross. Again, very much worth the time.

HAVE ANY OF YOU GUYS READ THESE YET? ARE ANY OF YOU GOING TO READ THIS? I'm telling you, it helps to reconcile many of the athiest/scientific arguments with scripture. I assume that's one of the reasons you participate on Worthy Boards. AM I WRONG?

[TheProcess]

The Word of God states that without the shedding of Blood that there is no forgiveness of sin.

The New Testament may say this, but it isn't true. Blood sacrifice was one way to atone for sin in the O.T., but it wasn't the only way.

[TheProcess]

The Life giving Spirits Blood is the only One sufficient. It actually pleased God. This last Adam replaced the first and defeated hell and death as well as our vanity which is our sin and disobedience to Gods Word.

Christians can always make up (weak) explanations for why Jesus had to get sacrificed of course, but I think it worth pointing out that if you take the Old Testament at face value then the Jesus sacrifice would never be legitimate. In fact, I think Jesus would be sinning to try it.

[TheProcess]

And with regard to Leviticus 17:11, which someone will probably mention:

(a) The topic of Leviticus 17:10-14 is not even about atonement for sin, but about a prohibition on consuming blood.

(b) All it says is that blood is the part of animal sacrifice that atones for sin, and that it has been given for this purpose. It doesn't say that ONLY blood will atone for sin. And that certainly isn't the case.

But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering. (Leviticus 5:11 KJV)

If flour can be used to atone for sin, then it is obvious that sacrifice doesn't need to be blood sacrifice. And sacrifice isn't the only way to atone for sin according to the Old Testament. But then, I guess we can't expect Christians to care about what the Bible actually teaches.

[Smalcald]

And with regard to Leviticus 17:11, which someone will probably mention:

(a) The topic of Leviticus 17:10-14 is not even about atonement for sin, but about a prohibition on consuming blood.

(b) All it says is that blood is the part of animal sacrifice that atones for sin, and that it has been given for this purpose. It doesn't say that ONLY blood will atone for sin. And that certainly isn't the case.

But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering. (Leviticus 5:11 KJV)

If flour can be used to atone for sin, then it is obvious that sacrifice doesn't need to be blood sacrifice. And sacrifice isn't the only way to atone for sin according to the Old Testament. But then, I guess we can't expect Christians to care about what the Bible actually teaches.

But the bible teaches that Christ died for our sins. It may have something to do with early the early Jewish sacrificial system, but that is never directly mentioned in scripture, and is not needed for what Christ did do and what we believe.

Now you can say the bible is simply bunk and wrong, I understand that, but you are not correct in you last sentence in the general. (there are certainly groups calling themselves Christian which have nothing to do with most of the bible)

[undone]

And with regard to Leviticus 17:11, which someone will probably mention:

(a) The topic of Leviticus 17:10-14 is not even about atonement for sin, but about a prohibition on consuming blood.

(b) All it says is that blood is the part of animal sacrifice that atones for sin, and that it has been given for this purpose. It doesn't say that ONLY blood will atone for sin. And that certainly isn't the case.

But if he be not able to bring two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he that sinned shall bring for his offering the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon: for it is a sin offering. (Leviticus 5:11 KJV)

If flour can be used to atone for sin, then it is obvious that sacrifice doesn't need to be blood sacrifice. And sacrifice isn't the only way to atone for sin according to the Old Testament. But then, I guess we can't expect Christians to care about what the Bible actually teaches.

But the bible teaches that Christ died for our sins. It may have something to do with early the early Jewish sacrificial system, but that is never directly mentioned in scripture, and is not needed for what Christ did do and what we believe.

Now you can say the bible is simply bunk and wrong, I understand that, but you are not correct in you last sentence in the general. (there are certainly groups calling themselves Christian which have nothing to do with most of the bible)

I think this wikipedia explanation suffices for understanding this concept.

Propitiation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Christianity, Propitiation is a theological term denoting that by which God is rendered propitious, i.e., that 'satisfaction' or 'appeasement' by which it becomes consistent with His character and government to pardon and bless sinners. The propitiation does not procure his love or make him loving; rather, it renders it consistent for him to exercise his love towards sinners.

[edit] Propitiation in Christian theology

In Christian theology, propitiation is the work of Jesus Christ on the cross, by which He appeases the wrath of God (not an emotional response of anger but a moral response of indignation), and conciliates Him who would otherwise be offended by our sin and would demand that we pay the penalty for it. The concept of propitiation is associated in some Christian theological systems with indemnity, imputed righteousness, and substitutionary atonement.

Propitiation is translated from the Greek (hilasterion), meaning "that which expiates or propitiates" or "the gift which procures propitiation". The word is also used in the New Testament for the place of propitiation, the "mercy seat". Hebrews 9:5. There is frequent similar use of (hilasterion) in the Septuagint, Exodus 25:18 ff. The mercy seat was sprinkled with atoning blood on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:14), representing that the righteous sentence of the Law had been executed, changing a judgment seat into a mercy seat (Hebrews 9:11-15; compare with "throne of grace" in Hebrews 4:14-16; place of communion, Exodus 25:21-22).

Another Greek word, (hilasmos), is used for Christ as our propitiation. 1 John 2:2; 4:10, and for "atonement" in the Septuagint (Leviticus 25:9). The thought in the Old Testament sacrifices and in the New Testament fulfillment, is that Christ completely satisfied the just demands of a holy God for judgment on sin, by His death on the Cross of Calvary.

God, in view of the Cross, is declared righteous in forgiving sins in the Old Testament period, as well as in justifying sinners under the New Covenant (Romans 3:25,26; cf. Exodus 29:33, note). Propitiation is not the placating of a vengeful God but, rather it is the satisfying of the righteousness judgement of that holy God; thereby making it possible for Him to show mercy, without compromising His righteousness or justice.

The Hebrew (kaphar), means "to propitiate, to atone for sin." According to Scripture, the sacrifice of the Law only covered the offeror's sin, and secured divine forgiveness for that year. The Old Testament sacrifices never removed man's sin. "It is not possible . . .", Hebrews 10:4. The Israelite's offering implied confession of sin in anticipation of Christ's sacrifice which did, finally, "put away" the sins "done previously in the forbearance of God", Romans 3:25; Heb. 9:15,26. This forgiveness frees the confessing believer from the burden of sin, allowing him or her to be 'adopted' into the spiritual family of God, and to enjoy the many blessings and spiritual fellowship with God which are the inheritance of God's people, the promise given to Abraham and his spiritual descendants given by God

[Guest willing servant]

You guys can blame god till the cows come home

I had a painful childhood (almost none at all)

A disturbing set of adolescent years

A troubled early adulthood

I kiss Jesus for it every day. Because it meant I turned around and saw him and god

Edited November 5, 2006 by willing servant

[TheProcess]

But the bible teaches that Christ died for our sins. It may have something to do with early the early Jewish sacrificial system, but that is never directly mentioned in scripture, and is not needed for what Christ did do and what we believe.

Now you can say the bible is simply bunk and wrong, I understand that, but you are not correct in you last sentence in the general. (there are certainly groups calling themselves Christian which have nothing to do with most of the bible)

The New Testament is saying something FALSE as part of its argument for why Jesus needed to get sacrificed. Don't you see that as a problem?

And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. (Hebrews 9:22-23 KJV)

And the argument certainly makes an appeal to Old Testament sacrifice. How can you say, "It may have something to do with the early Jewish sacrificial system, but that is never directly mentioned in scripture"?