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]

Jesus was crucified by the Romans as an insurrectionist. The Messiah in scripture was said to be the King of the Jews. In fact, the charge sheet nailed to the cross mockingly referred to the crucified Jesus as King of the Jews.

This was, of course, an embarrassment to his devoted followers. Paul writing about 25 years after the event, ascribed a religious necessity to Jesus' suffering " the theory of atonement to God for sin.

In western Christian theology, atonement describes how human beings can be reconciled to God through Christ's sacrificial death.[1] Atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin in general and original sin in particular through the death and resurrection of Jesus,[2] enabling the reconciliation between God and his creation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity



601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin. Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures." In particular, Jesus' redemptive death fulfills Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant. Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant. After his Resurrection, he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus, and then to the apostles.

Catechism of the Catholic church, ttp://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/601.htm

(T)wo great Doctors of the Church: St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas Aquinas. These great scholars asked themselves two questions concerning God's plan for man's salvation:

1. Was there another way that Jesus could have accomplished the salvation of man? and
2. If not, why did it have to be the way of suffering and death?

St. Augustine reasoned that there were two issues to be considered in the first question: Was there another way?
Issue #1. If the crucifixion of Jesus was the only means God could find to rescue man from sin and eternal death then He would have to be limited in His power and His wisdom.

Issue #2. But, if God preferred the cruel death of His Son over some other plan of salvation, then God cannot be kind and merciful and good


www.agapebiblestudy.com/.../Was%20it%20 ... e%20Christ.

Any thoughts?

[Elijah John]

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.

They not only undermine the dogma, they contradict it.AT BEST you can only say that the Scripture is contradictory on the matter of blood sacrifice, human or animal.

And that is no small contradiction, it is a major one. With multiple examples that Almighty God needs no blood sacrifice, never did.

Not only is the notion of blood sacrifice contradicted by scripture, it is contradicted by God-given Reason. Even Jews who adapted the practice for their brand of Monotheism, eventually realized (with the help of the prophets and with the great Maimonides) that YHVH only tolerated blood sacrifice for a time, as a transition from polytheistic paganism (from which they emerged in Egypt) to pure, undiluted Monotheism of YHVH.

And speaking of sacrifices, since JWs do not believe Jesus is God and completely human (and I agree) but you DO believe Jesus was killed as a sacrifice for humanity, then how to JWs escape the barbaric notion of preaching human blood-sacrifice?

At least the Trinitarians can claim that God sacrificed himself TO himself.

Neither position makes any sense. Both are ridiculous.

Many places Scripture insists that God prefers and requires obedience, mercy, knowledge of God, humility, gratitude, repentance and contrition etc, etc. Spiritual qualities and Spiritual offerings for a Spiritual God.

Instead of, more than, better than, and NOT sacrifice. Human or animal.

By mercy and truth iniquity is purged: and by fear of YHVH men depart from evil.

(Proverbs 16.6)

For I spake NOT unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
But this thing commanded I them, saying Obey my voice and I will be your God and ye shall be my people...

(Jeremiah 7 22-23)

(My emphasis on "NOT".)

Why would anyone cling to blood-sacrifice when Scripture offers clear and far less barbaric alternatives?

[wiploc]

[quote="Elijah John"]
What kind of Father demands the blood of his favorite Son in order to be able to forgive his other children?

My analogy:

You go into a restaurant and ask for a glass of water. You drink the water, and then you're told that the bill is a hundred million billion dollars.

"I can't pay that," you say.

"You don't have to pay it," the waiter says, "I already killed the busboy on your behalf. Aren't you grateful to me?"

Are you grateful?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 22 by wiploc]

More like he already killed his own boy for "our behalf". No I wouldn't be grateful for that, I would say the bill was WAY too high, and the murder of an innocent 3rd party is no solution, and pays for nothing.

[marco]

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

A loving father would do this only if he were in the situation of "Sophie's choice", where people stronger forced the acceptance of one of two horrendous alternatives. God is not in this position of having his hands tied and being forced to do the unpalatable. What kind of father, free to choose, willingly allows his son to be tortured and killed?

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

They not only undermine the dogma, they contradict it

No they do not. I have demonstrated that they do not in my posts above.

AT BEST you can only say that the Scripture is contradictory on the matter of blood sacrifice, human or animal.

No, AT BEST I can explain them, in context fully as I have done and demonstrate there is no contradiction therein. Feel free, if you feel able, to take the scripture, take my explanations and point by point present a counterargument. In the absence of that, simply restating your position with absolutely no counterargument presented to the argumentation provided, can be dismissed as rhetoric.

Neither position makes any sense.

Your positionn makes no sense

Both are ridiculous.

Your position is ridiculous.



JW

[Willum]

Well, as 'Divine Insight' so brilliantly pointed out,

What kind of Father demands the blood of His Son?

One who was so utterly defeated by his foe that he had no choice but to resort to desperate measures.

The precedent is of course in Isaac and Abraham. If a man can be looked up to sacrifice his son for a god, to God, then the sacrifice of a God, to presumably Satan (or some other entity - I don't know it's your religion), is of even greater significance.

The other fact, as DI I must emphatically state, brilliantly pointed out is: That Jesus'/Gods sacrifice is unable to save all of humanity, but only a very few.

This concept certainly supports the fact that God is in a state of retreat, not victory.

So, God, a good God, is forced to take desperate measures in order to save a fraction of mankind. One must presume, that the sacrifice, if Jesus is indeed a part of God, is that portion of the trinity characterized by Jesus.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 21 by Elijah John]

PROVERBS 16:6

"By loving-kindness and trueness error is atoned for..." - NWT




QUESTION: Does Proverbs 6:16 signal the end for the need for blood sacrifices as stipulated by the Mosaic law or contradict the principle of the ransom sacrifice as provided by Christ?

No, even after the Proverbs were written God continued to demand the Israelites honour their agreement to keep the Mosaic law including the requirements to offer up animal sacrifices. That said, throughout scripture God has explained that He is happy to forgive bad actions or sins (errors) if the wrongdoer repents and turns from bad to doing good. The principle can be found at Ezekiel 18:21-23

"If the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die*. All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him"

*be punished with death for his bad deeds.

QUESTION: If the above is true, why did God continue to demand blood sacrifices?

Because those sacfrifices were indicative of a future human sacrifice that would blot out ADAMIC sin and enable the legitimate reparation of the inherited effects that cause sickness and death. They also were a way for humans at the time to show they recognized the need for a blood sacrifice and display obedience to God.

Couldn't God indefinitely simply overlooked the sins without the above?

No, the wages of sin is death. Even those that offered animal sacrifices eventually died because the had inherited the a weakness to sin from Adam. God may well overlook a particulary wrong and mercifully withold punishment, but he cannot legitimately redeem mankind from adamic sin and death without human ransom sacrifice, there was no other way.

Thus, the confusion arises because people are ignorant of the difference between God extending mercy over the infaction of a law or principle (on the basis of the person being genuinely repentent), and the RANSOM sacrifice, that will enable people to live forever.

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

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 21 by Elijah John]

PROVERBS 16:6

"By loving-kindness and trueness error is atoned for..." - NWT




QUESTION: Does Proverbs 6:16 signal the end for the need for blood sacrifices as stipulated by the Mosaic law or contradict the principle of the ransom sacrifice as provided by Christ?

No, even after the Proverbs were written God continued to demand the Israelites honour their agreement to keep the Mosaic law including the requirements to offer up animal sacrifices. That said, throughout scripture God has explained that He is happy to forgive bad actions or sins (errors) if the wrongdoer repents and turns from bad to doing good. The principle can be found at Ezekiel 18:21-23

"If the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die*. All his transgressions which he has committed will not be remembered against him"

*be punished with death for his bad deeds.

QUESTION: If the above is true, why did God continue to demand blood sacrifices?

Because those sacfrifices were indicative of a future human sacrifice that would blot out ADAMIC sin and enable the legitimate reparation of the inherited effects that cause sickness and death. They also were a way for humans at the time to show they recognized the need for a blood sacrifice and display obedience to God.

Couldn't God indefinitely simply overlooked the sins without the above?

No, the wages of sin is death. Even those that offered animal sacrifices eventually died because the had inherited the a weakness to sin from Adam. God may well overlook a particulary wrong and mercifully withold punishment, but he cannot legitimately redeem mankind from adamic sin and death without human ransom sacrifice, there was no other way.

Thus, the confusion arises because people are ignorant of the difference between God extending mercy over the infaction of a law or principle (on the basis of the person being genuinely repentent), and the RANSOM sacrifice, that will enable people to live forever.

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

How then, do you account for the Jeremiah 7.21-24 passage? Where God through the prophet indicates that He never commanded regarding blood sacrifice?

And Psalm 50.12-13 where God indicates that He does not get hungry for flesh and blood, and that He certainly would not depend upon sacrifices to feed Him even if He did need these things, because the "the world is mine, and the fullness thereof".

Pagan deities need to be "fed" not the Living God.

Yes, the wages of sin is death, but Ezekiel 18.21-23 indicates that simple repentance is the remedy. Not blood-sacrifice. Repentance restores one to the path of Life. Forgiving the contrite is not God "overlooking" sin or Him being permissive. Forgiveness that must be "paid for" is not forgiveness at all, and certainly not a "free gift".

If someone forgives a loan, they no longer demand repayment. If they continue to demand repayment even by a 3rd party, it is no longer forgiveness.

So Christ is the remedy for Adamic sin, the "2nd Adam"? What if there was no literal first Adam to begin with, and no literal Garden-fall drama?

Myth, it seems, is a very shaky foundation upon which to build a redemption theology.

But literalists are married to their myths, and must deny science when it contradicts those myths.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 28 by Elijah John]

JEREMIAH 7: 21-23
This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, says, Go ahead, add your whole burnt offerings to your other sacrifices, and eat the flesh yourselves. For on the day I brought your forefathers out of the land of Egypt, I did not speak with them or command them concerning whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. But I did give them this command: Obey my voice, and I will become your God, and you will become my people. You must walk in all the way that I command, so that it may go well with you. NWT

QUESTION: Does the above scripture indicate God never actually demanded for blood sacrifices?

Not at all, such a reading would be a gross misinterpretation of both content and context. When the above words were recorded the Israelites had fallen into idolatrous false worship. Wrongly, they concluded that their offering sacrifices at Jehovah's temple somehow compensated for their immorality, greed and worship of false gods. Jehovah God let them know that without a regard for the principles upon which the law was based, their sacrifices were worthless and they might as well just eat them themselves.


Why did God say that there was no mention of "burnt offerings" and "sacrifices" when the Israelites were freed from slavery in Egypt?

Because the Mosaic Law, which incorporated the institutionalization of such sacrifices, had not, at that moment in time, yet been established.

While the Israelites were familiar with the idea of blood sacrifice (protection from the last plague inflicted on the Egyptians involved the slaughter of a lamb and the putting of its blood on their doorposts), the temple system of worship was not established until after their exodus from Egypt. It was sometime after that that, at Mount Horeb, that the Mosaic law was communicated, and the Israelites formally accepted to adhere to it.

The offering of whole burnt sacrifices and the use of the symbolically atoning qualitiy of blood was most definitely a part of that system and a requirement of the God of the Jews.

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

Proverbs 6:16
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 803#853803