Is Jesus who He said He is?

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Please don't waste time with personal attacks.

Not an attack and observation which still holds to be true.

How is it a relevant question?

You are using the Old Testament model to discredit the New Testament model. It is relevant because both of these Testaments spoke of the same thing. Forgiveness of sins. Since you hold weight in the Old Testament model. I am now asking you how you are expiating your sins.

You may believe this as a Christian. Obviously Jews (unless they are heretical) wouldn't agree that their scripture has anything to do with Jesus. You can make the claim but it doesn't get us anywhere.

Sure it does because you are discrediting Jesus with this very system of Religion. However the Lord Himself had much to say about that system. Also it's adherents. Not particularly the Jews themselves but the Religious sytem they did follow..

If you want to talk to me about my sin, well I don't accept the Bible as scripture. You can't quote it at me as if I were a Christian.

As I said your sincerety is wearing thin.

Then what's your point?

Christians hold the Old Testament as Divinely inspired. So you not believing it, certainly cannot hold it forth as your argumentation.

I can certainly use the argument that the New Testament isn't consistent with the Old Testament.

However you cannot hold it forth as argumentation against the New Testament when you do not hold it to be True nor inspired.

So how are you atoneing for your sin?

Peace,

Dave

[nebula]

God makes the rules?

This blows your own argument apart. If God makes the rules, then he could easily have accepted something other than blood sacrifice.

I think you are saying God should have chosen something else, are you not?

Seriously, this is what I hear coming out of your arguments:

You in your superior intellect, logic and reason have determined that if there was a God, then He should operate a certain way. The God of the Bible does not operate in that way. Therefore, the God of the Bible does not exist.

You do not like the idea of blood being the price for sin. So you are arguing against Christianity on the basis of what you believe the rules should be.

No, that it isn't what I am saying at all. My point was simply that if "God makes the rules" then blood isn't something necessary for atonement. God can choose whatever he likes.

But what if he did? Can you provide evidence He did not?

[Guest shiloh357]

Could you support this claim from scripture? That the atonement in question, "simply brings one into good standing in the community", and has nothing to do with, "atoning for sin before God"?

That is not what I said; go back and read my post. What I said is that most people do not understand that the sacrifices also played a legal role in the civil affairs of the Theocracy under which Israel originally existed. The Sacrifices played "double-duty," if you will. If you note the offenses I cited earlier, they are civil offenses such as not offering relevant testimony in court when it was in one's power to do so, or touching a dead body. It is in regard to civil issues that one was allowed to bring the omer of flour. The omer of flour was NOT permitted with regard to one's guilt before God. Only blood was allowed in those instances.

The five main, prescribed sacrifices can divided into two parts; those which could make atonement (sin offering, trepass offering), and those which did not atone for anything, but were expressions of adoration and praise to God (peace offering meal offering, burnt offering). What we are concerned with here, are the sin offering and the trespass offering. The sin offering generally dealt with the guilt of sin, and the trespass offering dealt with the harm caused by sin.

These two sacrifices illustrate the truth that God's justice requires retribution for guilt until it is satisfied. Under the Levitical law outlined in Scripture, the sacrifices served as a symbolic substitute that would bear the guilt of the person bringing the offering. The key word here is, "symbolic." In the eyes of the Lord no animal sacrifice was truly "expiatory" because the blood of animals cannot take away sin once and for all. Thus, it was necessary to offer them over and over every year. They were symbolic in that they pointed to the once for all expiatory sin offering that would fully and finally take away the sin of the world.

Yet we also see that these sacrifices also possessed a legal status within the Theocracy. One could incurr civil guilt with regard to the law. We read in the Scriptures of particular behaviors that had to be cleansed by the offering of guilt (trespass) sacrifices. This would include defilement by touching a dead body, or if one was defiled while under a Nazarite vow, ritual impurity after childbirth, Often there was immediate penalties demanded by the civil law code, and to be sure not every civil sin could be dealt with by sacrifice. Sins that were committed with a "high hand" such as adultery, other sexual sins and murder for example, brought an immediate death sentence under the civil code. This is because reparations to victim cannot be made in those cases. Obviously, one cannot be "un-murdered," nor can one undo the damage, trauma caused by sexual sins, adultery and so forth. While one can be cleansed of guilt before the Lord, the civil law code must yet still be enforced under this Theocracy.

Therefore, sacrifices dealt with sin, on two fronts, both spiritual and legal, and thus the concept of atonement can be seen operating on the same two fronts. "Atonement" for civil offenses, brought one into right-standing with the community and was of course, accompanied by the requirement of restitution where applicable/possible.

[Guest shiloh357]

No, that it isn't what I am saying at all. My point was simply that if "God makes the rules" then blood isn't something necessary for atonement. God can choose whatever he likes.

The problem is that it not a matter of what God "likes." It's not like God had a list of options in front of him, and simply chose the "blood option" out of the list.

The problem is that God cannot ,by His Nature, tolerate sin. Sin is what separates man from God. From the very beginning the sin resulted in both the spiritual and physical death of man.

God, in His mercy, had to come up with a plan to redeem mankind from death, while preserving and satisfying His justice. Only blood, sinless blood, would work. It required that the innocent, the sinless, must die to cover the sins of the guilty. Yet none of us are guiltless, only God Himself. So it was upon God Himself to redeem mankind Himself since there was no one else to send.

Jesus was/is God in the flesh. Jesus lived a perfect, sinless life, and as such, was the only one fit to stand in man's place before the Father, and die for man. It was a man who sinned, and it was the sinless Son of God, as a man, who shed His blood willingly to satisfy God's justice. Whether you can see it or not, it was God hanging on the cross.

In Christ, God had taken on the dual roles of both the offender and the offended. God, in order to satisfy His Justice literally took all of His wrath, His hatred of sin, all of His judgement which was rightfully reserved for man, and hurled it at Himself, instead. God, Himself, paid the penalty of sin, and He did it so that we would not have to. In this, we who have put our faith in this finished work of the cross have been set free from the bondage of sin, our sin debt fully paid by the Lord, Himself.

I am reminded of a line from the song "The Year of Jubilee" by Michael Card: "To be so completely guilty, given over to despair; to look into your Judge's face, and see a Savior there." Indeed, Jesus is our "Jubilee."

[ted]

TheProcess, I think at this point you truly understand all of the arguments and understand the concept of forgiveness as the Bible presents it. I also think that you understand the need for it, as laid out in both the OT and the NT. You may not believe in it, but you do understand what the Bible is trying to say about it, correct?

I think, at this point, you understand the concept with enough knowledge of the subject to make an informed decision, but you still reject it.

Are my statements thus far correct?

Thanks,

t.

[TheProcess]

Except perhaps where you mention that, "the Festivals, the Tabernacle structure and it's contents, the sacrifices and other services, the Priesthood/High Priest, all point to Jesus". Which you haven't given any evidence for.

I predict that you aren't going to be able to provide substantial evidence for this claim. But lets see...

Why am I so confident? Because I think shiloh357 has made the same mistake as "undone" -- using a non-literal reading of scripture which can't be supported with substantial evidence.

Actually, the only evidence I can provide is from Scripture, but since you don't hold Scripture as reliable, it would be a waste of my time to sit here and type out a lengthy, detailed and involved response that you will simply thumb your nose at.

I don't believe you. I think you are using non-literal interpretation that it would be impossible to provide solid evidence for.

[TheProcess]

But what if he did? Can you provide evidence He did not?

What if he did? This is a change of subject.

My point was simply that if God "makes the rules" then he can choose what he likes. Blood sacrifice isn't something necessary for atonement.

[TheProcess]

However you cannot hold it forth as argumentation against the New Testament when you do not hold it to be True nor inspired.

Pure nonsense. Of course I can.

[TheProcess]

Could you support this claim from scripture? That the atonement in question, "simply brings one into good standing in the community", and has nothing to do with, "atoning for sin before God"?

That is not what I said; go back and read my post. What I said is that most people do not understand that the sacrifices also played a legal role in the civil affairs of the Theocracy under which Israel originally existed. The Sacrifices played "double-duty," if you will. If you note the offenses I cited earlier, they are civil offenses such as not offering relevant testimony in court when it was in one's power to do so, or touching a dead body. It is in regard to civil issues that one was allowed to bring the omer of flour. The omer of flour was NOT permitted with regard to one's guilt before God. Only blood was allowed in those instances.

Well if that isn't what you said, then flour does "atone for sin before God". I can't see what point you have.

[TheProcess]

God, in His mercy, had to come up with a plan to redeem mankind from death, while preserving and satisfying His justice. Only blood, sinless blood, would work. It required that the innocent, the sinless, must die to cover the sins of the guilty. Yet none of us are guiltless, only God Himself. So it was upon God Himself to redeem mankind Himself since there was no one else to send.

"Only blood, sinless blood, would work"

What evidence do you have for this claim? Is this merely opinion?

And if "sinless blood" is required, you could always use an animal.

"It required that the innocent, the sinless, must die to cover the sins of the guilty"

This doesn't seem to have much to do with "justice".