What kind of Father demands the blood of His Son?

[Elijah John]

Is the God of Jesus a merciful forgiving Father?

Or a bloodthirsty deity who must be appeased by the blood of animals, then later, by the blood of His favorite Son?

I realize these are loaded questions, and that my bias is apparent.

But which is it, merciful Father or Judge who demands blood?*

Which kind of God did Jesus himself teach? (not Paul, but Jesus)

What kind of Father demands the blood of his favorite Son in order to be able to forgive his other children?

--------------------

(note.. this thread is about forgiveness and atonement, not about the wars of YHVH's people etc.)

*if you answer "both" then please demonstrate how the two notions are compatible.

[polonius]

Blastcat posted:

Second, in this part of the forum, we are asked to take the Bible as the final authority. We can take the Bible stories on their face in here.

RESPONSE: Thats not what the instruction says.

In this subforum the canon of the Bible is considered authoritative with respect to the historical consensus of the canon's content.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 11 by polonius.advice]

Blastcat posted:

Second, in this part of the forum, we are asked to take the Bible as the final authority. We can take the Bible stories on their face in here.

RESPONSE: Thats not what the instruction says.

In this subforum the canon of the Bible is considered authoritative with respect to the historical consensus of the canon's content.

Thanks for the clarification.

The stories in the Bible are.. what they happen to be.
They are written as if what they describe is the "Gospel truth".

The Bible is authoritative on what the Bible says.. right.
And that's quite disputable.

Christians don't agree with each other on this topic.
I don't agree with most Christians on most every topic in the Bible...

Whatarwegonnado?

[ttruscott]

RESPONSE: Perhaps you can tell us why an infinite God demands a blood sacrifice to forgive sins committed against him.

No, I can't.

Since I start from the pov that GOD needs nothing and so all demands made upon us are for our good, I assume the blood sacrifice is necessary for our becoming who sinners will become but the particular reasons for the institution that there is no forgiveness without blood have not been taught to me yet.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 13 by ttruscott]


[center]
God doesn't need us to be happy[/center]

Since I start from the pov that GOD needs nothing and so all demands made upon us are for our good

If he REALLY needs nothing, he wouldn't need what's for our good, either.
Why does a god that doesn't NEED anything DESIRE anything?

Your idea doesn't make sense.

[Elijah John]

RESPONSE: Perhaps you can tell us why an infinite God demands a blood sacrifice to forgive sins committed against him.

No, I can't.

Since I start from the pov that GOD needs nothing and so all demands made upon us are for our good, I assume the blood sacrifice is necessary for our becoming who sinners will become but the particular reasons for the institution that there is no forgiveness without blood have not been taught to me yet.

A good and honest admission. But then you go on to repeat a claim that has been refuted in post #8, Jeremiah 7.21-24 Psalm 50. 8-15,
and many other places in Scripture. Such as:

-Hosea 6.6,
-Psalm 40.6,
-Psalm 51.16-17,
-Micah 6.6-8,
-Proverbs 16.6,
-Proverbs 21.2-3,
-1st Samuel 15.22,
-John's baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, (water, not blood)
-the Lord's prayer, (forgive as we forgive)
-the Beattitude, (the merciful receive mercy)
-the Parables, (the lost coin, the lost sheep, the prodigal son)
-Matthew 9.13,
-Matthew 12.7,
-Mark.12.33 and others.

No doubt you could come back with some verses which support blood-sacrifice as well.

But that only proves that the Bible as a whole is contradictory on the matter.

And the verses I cite are clear evidence that the author of Hebrews was wrong when he said that "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins".

The good news of Scripture? There IS forgiveness from God without the shedding of blood!

as Isaiah quotes YHVH, :

"I, I am He who blots out your transgressions for my own sake,and I will not remember your sins".

and again:

"Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
By myself I have sworn...to me "every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." only in YHVH it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength;

God proclaimed universal salvation before Jesus, before Paul. He did this through Isaiah.

[JehovahsWitness]

But then you go on to repeat a claim that has been refuted in [...] in Scripture. Such as:

-Hosea 6.6

These scriptures in no way undermine the fact that God demanded blood sacrifices from the Jews nor that his son was sent was sent to die for mankind.

Hosea 6:6 (Ps 40:6)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 942#800942

Micah 6:6-8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 019#801019

Good answer, thoughtful and well supported. One that deserves a thoughtful rebuttal. (in the works.)

You make an excellent case for your pov.

Matthew 9:13
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 302#827302

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

-the Lord's prayer, (forgive as we forgive)
-the Beattitude, (the merciful receive mercy)
-the Parables, (the lost coin, the lost sheep, the prodigal son)

QUESTION: Do the numerous scriptures that refer to forgiveness of sins (without mention of the ransom sacrifice) contradict the Christian teaching of Christ dying for mankind?

• No, this question springs from a basic lack of understanding of the difference between overlooking a sin (a personal wrong committed against someone) and the ransoming sacrifice which was to atone for ADAMIC SIN. Someone that doesn't know what adamic sin is (the sinful condition inherited from Adam) can never understand the value of Jesus' mission since his offering of his life was to rectify the inevitable consequences of what Adam did.

I have explained this earlier. See link below
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 307#827307

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

PSALMS 51: 16-17

QUESTION: Can Psalms 51 be used to support the view that the Mosaic law requirement of offering blood sacrificed had been revoked?

Psalm 51:16-17 (NIV)

You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. My sacrifice, O God, is[a] a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise.

The above words were written by King David after he had committed adultery with his General's wife, Bathsheba and subsequently arrange to have her husband killed. It is a gross misapplication of scripture to suggest that this indicates that the Mosaic Law had been adapted or revoked.

Firstly, it should be noted that there was no provision under the Mosaic Law for atonement of sins such as adultery or murder. Under the law those found guilty of such crimes were to be put to death. God stepped in and extended the contrite David mercy sparing his life.

What did David mean that God does not "delight in sacrifice" or "take pleasure in burnt offerings"? Surely not that God had revoked his law which demanded both. Indeed a forgiven David was later recorded in scripture in offering sacrifices and those sacrifices being pleasing to God (see 1 Chron 29:20-21). Noteworthy is the fact that following David, his son Solomon built and dedicated a temple to God (Jehovah) where there would be ritualistic animal blood sacrifices as stipulated by the law. In 2 Chronicles chapter 7 verse 12 God himself responded that he had accepted that temple as {quote} "pl

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

PSALMS 51: 16-17

QUESTION: Can Psalms 51 be used to support the view that the Mosaic law requirement of offering blood sacrifices had been revoked?

Few reasonable individuals would argue that the Mosaic law didn't include the requirement that worshippers offer blood sacrifices. The Question then would when if at all such a requirement was revoked.

Psalm 51:16-17 (NIV)

You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings. My sacrifice, O God, is[a] a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart you, God, will not despise.

The above words were written by King David after he had committed adultery with his General's wife, Bathsheba and subsequently arrange to have her husband killed. It is a gross misapplication of scripture to suggest that this indicates that the Mosaic Law had been adapted or revoked.

Firstly, it should be noted that there was no provision under the Mosaic Law for atonement of sins such as adultery or murder. Under the law those found guilty of such crimes were to be put to death. God stepped in and extended the contrite David mercy sparing his life.

What then did David mean that God does not "delight in sacrifice" or "take pleasure in burnt offerings"?

Evidently not that God had revoked his law which demanded both. Indeed a forgiven David was later recorded in scripture in offering those very blood sacrifices (see 1 Chron 29:20-21). Noteworthy is the fact that following David, his son Solomon built and dedicated a temple to God (Jehovah) where there would be ritualistic animal blood sacrifices as stipulated by the law. In 2 Chronicles chapter 7 verse 12 God himself responded that he had accepted that temple as a {quote}"place for myself as a house of sacrifice" {end quote} NWT.

So since reasonably God neither revoked nor expressed his displeasure in the offering of animals as blood sacrifices, David must have been recognizing (as has been explained) that a sacrifice could

i) not atone for the specific serious sins he had committed.
ii) no sacrifice is of any value in the absence of a sincere heart.

CONCLUSION: The Jews fell many times into the trap of believing their sacrifices excused willful corruption and disregard for the more important principles of love and mercy. They were wrong. To extrapolate from that that because God rejected formalistic ritual sacrifice, devoid of genuine love of God, that he had revoked the entire system is without scriptural basis.

Hosea 6:6 (Ps 40:6)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 942#800942

Micah 6:6-8
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 019#801019

Matthew 9:13 ; Matthew 12:7
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 302#827302

Psalm 51.16-17
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 350#853350

1 Samuel 15.22; Mark.12.33; Proverbs 21:2-3
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 355#853355

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

MORE and BETTER or NONE at all?

1 Samuel 15.22
Then Samuel said, "Does the LORD take pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as he does in obedience? Certainly, obedience is better than sacrifice; paying attention is better than the fat of rams. - NET Bible

Mark.12.33
To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.

PROVERBS 2:13
To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. - King James Bible

Certain have used the above scriptures to support the view that God never intended to have blood sacrifices and/or that he revoked the temple arrangement of offering blood sacrifices at the time these words were spoken. Is this are reasonable conclusion.

The Mosaic law communicated from God to Moses, demanded that God's people systematically offer sacrifices for among other things the atonement of certain sins. This system was in place both during the time of Samuel and Jesus (see scriptures above). In all of the above scripures it should be noted that there is a comparison being made between the actual sacrifices and godly qualities that worshippers are expected to display such as obedience and love. The qualities are deemed as more important or more acceptable than the sacrifices. But what does this imply?

If something is more important than something else, then the first thing is necessarily of some import. If, comparing obedience and sacrifice (or practicing justice), obedience is better, then sacrifice is good. So from the above scriptures we can conclude that the offering of blood sacrifices was considered by Samuel a faithful Prophet, the writer of Proverbs (probably Solomon) and Jesus as "good", important" and "acceptable".

Does the fact that qualities are more important than sacrifice not imply that the sacrificial system was henseforth revoked?

No! Samuel himself went on, after making this remark, to offer a sacrifice with David's family and town, Solomon dedicated the temple referred to by God as a "house for sacrifice" and Jesus is recorded as observing the Passover which involved the slaughter of a lamb or a goat in commemoration of the liberation of the Jews from Egypt.

CONCLUSION The inclusion of these scriptures to in any way suggest they contradict either the Mosaic temple system which included blood sacrifices or the principle of Jesus life sacrifice for mankind is totally without basis.