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.

[JehovahsWitness]

Yes, the wages of sin is death, but Ezekiel 18.21-23 indicates that simple repentance is the remedy. Not blood-sacrifice.

The remedy for what?! A contraint heart may well mean God extends an individual mercy and refrains from punishing them for what they have done wrong. It is not, however a remedy for death, sickness and cannot atone for adamic sin. If that were the case, being sincerely sorry would mean we would live forever. evidently, since we still die, the sin is still there.

QUESTION: Does God extending mercy or being willing to not impost the prescribed punishment for a wrong, mean their ADAMIC SIN has been atoned for?

This question has already been addressed:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 347#853347

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

Jeremiah 7: 21-23
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 871#853871

[polonius]

Yes, the wages of sin is death, but Ezekiel 18.21-23 indicates that simple repentance is the remedy. Not blood-sacrifice.

The remedy for what?! A contraint heart may well mean God extends an individual mercy and refrains from punishing them for what they have done wrong. It is not, however a remedy for death, sickness and cannot atone for adamic sin. If that were the case, being sincerely sorry would mean we would live forever. evidently, since we still die, the sin is still there.

QUESTION: Does God extending mercy or being willing to not impost the prescribed punishment for a wrong, mean their ADAMIC SIN has been atoned for?

This question has already been addressed:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 347#853347

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

Jeremiah 7: 21-23
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 871#853871

RESPONSE: No. The "Adamic" sin is a fiction from the Old testament actually written in 800-7OO BC.

The first seven books of the Bible are now recognized to be folklore, not history.

As noted by a reviewer on Salon.com the approach and conclusions of The Bible Unearthed are not particularly new. Ze'ev Herzog, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, wrote a cover story for Haaretz in 1999 in which he reached similar conclusions following the same methodology; Herzog noted also that some of these findings have been accepted by the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists for years and even decades, even though they have only recently begun to make a dent in the awareness of the general public.

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

For the account in the Torah is the basis of our peoples creation, it is the basis of our existence and it is the basis of our important Passover festival and the whole Haggada that we recite on the first evening of this festival of freedom. So that makes archaeologists reluctant to have to tell our brethren and ourselves that there is nothing in Egyptian records to support it. Nothing on the slavery of the Israelites, nothing on the plagues that persuaded Pharaoh to let them go, nothing on the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea, nothing.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-Ed-Cont ... say-348464

See also: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-bible-unearthed/

But bible fundamentalists must make those they are trying to convert believe that the Bible in inspired by God and therefore always correct in matters of faith and history.

But even a superficial reading proves that the Bible is not. It contains a small amount of history but a large amount of folklore. Its purpose, of course, is to make "believers" out of non-believers, ie. those who want real evidence.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 28 by Elijah John]

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

You are failing to account for apologetics, even within the Bible.

It is very plain that God required sacrifice, and perhaps a mind like yourself realized a god requiring sacrifice is something of a parasite, and weak, and so beefed up the Bible later in time, making the unsubstantiated claim God was aloof.

Indeed we have his need to sacrifice his only son... to whom?

Aside for Biblical claims - as distinguished from Biblical events and actions, thee is no reason to believe God is any different from a pagan god.

Except that he claims to be, sans any events or actions to back up the claim.

[There and back again]

God and Jesus are one.
So in essence God sacrificed himself for sin. Not his Son. Otherwise you would have a polytheistic religion.

Cleared on all father, son, related charges. Case dismissed

[marco]

God and Jesus are one.
So in essence God sacrificed himself for sin. Not his Son. Otherwise you would have a polytheistic religion.

Cleared on all father, son, related charges. Case dismissed

Such a scenario is the stuff of comic opera or pantomime. Does God cut off his leg to appease his right arm?

We must remember that the terms "father" and "son" are used metaphorically, as is "king", so that humans can glimpse the delights of divinity. So in considering "what kind of Father...." we are really examining the aptness of the metaphor.

[Elijah John]

If that were the case, being sincerely sorry would mean we would live forever. evidently, since we still die, the sin is still there.

QUESTION: Does God extending mercy or being willing to not impost the prescribed punishment for a wrong, mean their ADAMIC SIN has been atoned for?

The verse from Ezekiel clearly indicates that the soul who repents is the soul that shall live. Simple repentance is enough, always has been.

No need to atone for "Adamic" sin. Notice nothing even in Leviticus addresses "Adamic sin". Jews do not believe in the doctrine of "original sin" or inherited guilt. Not even Moses, it seems, believed in that doctrine.

We still die whether or not we believe that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins, or that he was the "2nd Adam".

So then, isn't the sin "still there" in the case of people who "accept Jesus death as their payment to God for sin"? "Born-agains" and Jehovah's Witnesses still die too.

And again, if blood-atonement theology is the remedy for Adam's sin it is no wonder you defend so vehemently the literal existence of Adam and Eve in the Garden. Your Pauline human sacrifice theology crumbles if they weren't real, literal people.

A shaky foundation indeed.

[Elijah John]

Neither position makes any sense.

Your positionn makes no sense

Both are ridiculous.

Your position is ridiculous.

JW

So it is ridiculous to believe that God, a Spirit, has no need for blood? Sorry, it is common sense and God-given reason which suggests that the Almighty has no need for blood in order to be able to forgive.

It is ridiculous to believe that he desires, or demands blood.

"I desire mercy, NOT sacrifice.

What is unclear about that verse and others like it?

And you still have not addressed Psalm 50.9-13

Psalm 50:9-13New International Version (NIV)

9
I have no need of a bull from your stall
or of goats from your pens,
10
for every animal of the forest is mine,
and the cattle on a thousand hills.
11
I know every bird in the mountains,
and the insects in the fields are mine.
12
If I were hungry I would not tell you,
for the world is mine, and all that is in it.
13
Do I eat the flesh of bulls
or drink the blood of goats?

Or humans for that matter? And Jesus was a human being, by your own sect's teaching. So you cannot escape the fact that your sect preaches human sacrifice, at least in this one instance.

Unless I missed it, you constantly evade the verses I quoted. Try refuting them, which clearly indicate that God does not desire, nor does He demand blood.

And please refute these verses without offering contradictory verses which indicate that He does. That would only prove Biblical contadiction, something which you seem to claim is impossible.

But the belief that God needs blood to forgive contradicts not only significant portions of Scripture, but common sense and God-given Reason.

Why would the Supreme Spirit Being need blood to enable Him to forgive, or for any other reason?

And if you insist on recycling contradictory verses, please hamonize them. Demonstrate for us that they are not contradictory. Let's just focus on Hosea 6.6 and the Psalm 50.9-15 for now, which support each other but refute the pro-sacrifice position.

And don't gloss over the highlighted "NOT" in Hosea 6.6. Apologists often take that verse to mean "I desire mercy in addition to sacrifice". But the verse does not say that. The word "NOT" in this context is exclusionary. The verse excludes sacrifice from the thing that God desires.

[JehovahsWitness]

So then, isn't the sin "still there" in the case of people who "accept Jesus death as their payment to God for sin"? ... Jehovah's Witnesses still die too.

QUESTION: If Jesus died to reverse the effects of what Adam did, namely eliminate inherited tendence to sin and the death which sin incurs, why do believers still die?

Although Jesus offered his life two thousand years ago, bringing immediate benefits to his followers, the full benefit of his sacrifice will not be administered until during what the bible speaks of as a milleniul (1000 year) reign.

After the destruction of the wicked and God's kingdom government takes full control of the planet, obedient mankind will be guided back to perfection. Sickness, disease and the health problems associated with old age will be things of the past. The earth will return to a paradise like condition everywhere, and the "meek" who will "inherit that earth" will enjoy the countless blessings of living in paradise.

Symbolically the book of revelation speaks of a healing mankind, and Jesus spoke of giving "life in abundance" under his rule. Jehovah's Witnesses bring this message to people from house to house, in the streets and whereever they can find a listening ear and millions are responding by learning what they must do to recieve this priceless gift.

We call this the "good news of the kingdom".






Further reading: Jesus Death and Resurrection"What They Can Mean for You
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... urrection/

[Elijah John]

So then, isn't the sin "still there" in the case of people who "accept Jesus death as their payment to God for sin"? ... Jehovah's Witnesses still die too.

QUESTION: If Jesus died to reverse the effects of what Adam did, namely eliminate inherited tendence to sin and the death which sin incurs, why do believers still die?

Although Jesus offered his life two thousand years ago, bringing immediate benefits to his followers, the full benefit of his sacrifice will not be administered until during what the bible speaks of as a milleniul (1000 year) reign.

After the destruction of the wicked and God's kingdom government takes full control of the planet, obedient mankind will be guided back to perfection. Sickness, disease and the health problems associated with old age will be things of the past. The earth will return to a paradise like condition everywhere, and the "meek" who will "inherit that earth" will enjoy the countless blessings of living in paradise.

Symbolically the book of revelation speaks of a healing mankind, and Jesus spoke of giving "life in abundance" under his rule. Jehovah's Witnesses bring this message to people from house to house, in the streets and whereever they can find a listening ear and millions are responding by learning what they must do to recieve this priceless gift.

We call this the "good news of the kingdom".




Further reading: Jesus Death and Resurrection"What They Can Mean for You
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/maga ... urrection/

I do not speculate as to the exact nature of Divine reward and punishment. But assuming it is as you say, "Paradise on Earth", couldn't the argument be made that all who die in God's good graces will be revived to such pastoral splendor, whether or not they die on earth in this present age?

Remember, you cited evidence that people still die as evidence that Adamic sin. And I stated that JW's die too, regardless of their beliefs.

The question then becomes "who are those who die in God's good graces"? And the Bible supports the notion that "everyone who calls on the name of YHVH" will be saved or delivered.

[JehovahsWitness]

The question then becomes "who are those who die in God's good graces"?

I do not speculate as to the exact identity of who will be rewarded with eternal life and who will not. I am confident of God's mercy and justice and do my best to live my faith, it would be presumptuous of me to say more.

As Jehovah's Witnesses our personal responsibility is not to judge but to share this good news of good things to come (the gospel) which is of great comfort to many and educate those that want to learn more. We leave the judgement in the hands of the Almighty.


See Matthew 28: 19, 20