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.

[Elijah John]

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.

On this, as stated, we totally agree! And on a few other things.

And to clarify for Evangelicals also, though I reject the notion that God needs blood sacrifice in order to forgive, I am not suggesting that belief in those doctrines preclude one from salvation. I am however suggesting that if believers in blood atonement are saved, they are saved in spite of not because of those beliefs.

Admittedly I could be wrong too. In the end I think we can agree that God will clarify any mis-beliefs or misconceptions.

[JehovahsWitness]

"I desire mercy, NOT sacrifice.

What is unclear about that verse...?

The above words are from a scripture in the bible, Hosea 6:6 (Ps 40:6)

There is nothing unclear about the scripture if one reads it. I have explained this scripture earlier, perhaps you missed it, here is the link.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 942#800942

... and others like it?

If you are refering to the passages below you will find my explanations in the links below.

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

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 33 by There and back again]

[center]

God is in need of psychotherapy[/center]

So in essence God sacrificed himself for sin.

So, the father committed "suicide by roman" in order to forgive two people.
Found innocent by reason of insanity.

[Elijah John]

[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.

Well, if the non-sacfirical options are better than sacfiride, wouldn't that render the sacrifices superflous, by default? Without the "official" abolition of Mosaic law regarding sacrifices?

Reason and common sense would suggest that this indeed, is the case.

[JehovahsWitness]

Well, if the non-sacfirical options are better than sacfiride, wouldn't that render the sacrifices superflous, by default? Without the "official" abolition of Mosaic law regarding sacrifices?

Reason and common sense would suggest that this indeed, is the case.

That conclusion is unreasonable, unbiblical and lacks all common sense. A law can only be revoked by the authority that insitgated or superceded it.

Logic,

JW

[Claire Evans]

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.

Yahweh and God aren't the same so we can safely say the Father did not want animal sacrifices. God did not demand blood. Jesus was not someone who was offered as a blood sacrifice to a deity. He offered His life for us and it so happened that blood was shed because of the actions of man. That had nothing to do with God. He didn't want it but the point was for Jesus to die so sin and Satan could be defeated and to have the resurrection.

We do not have the divine nature of Jesus so we cannot put ourselves in the same league as Jesus who is God's only begotten son. We aren't considered God incarnate when humans are referred to as sons and daughters of God.

Nowhere did Jesus say God demanded animal sacrifices. He taught that it is not through the scriptures that one finds God. If they have seen Jesus, they have seen the Father. God was reaching out to all people through Jesus, not just to the Jews.

[marco]

He offered His life for us and it so happened that blood was shed because of the actions of man. That had nothing to do with God. He didn't want it but the point was for Jesus to die so sin and Satan could be defeated and to have the resurrection.

That may have been his laudable aim but it didn't work as Satan and sin are flourishing still. Obviously those who would have been good before Christ's suicide would remain good after. So it is hard to see what it was all for.

We aren't considered God incarnate when humans are referred to as sons and daughters of God.

And perhaps this applies equally to Jesus.

God was reaching out to all people through Jesus, not just to the Jews.

His reach was defective then, since "all people" did not get the message of Christ. I'm sure God could have found a more efficient way, but even gods make mistakes it seems. All the same, he had another try when he sent Muhammad. That looks a bit more promising judging by the number of converts to the Religion of Peace.

[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.

Yahweh and God aren't the same so we can safely say the Father did not want animal sacrifices.

Then what is God's name? The name of God is used in a sacred way almost 6000 times in the Hebrew Bible, and Jesus teaches us to hallow God's name.

God did not demand blood.

On that we agree. He does not demand blood, nor does He desire it. (Hosea 6.6)

Jesus was not someone who was offered as a blood sacrifice to a deity. He offered His life for us and it so happened that blood was shed because of the actions of man. That had nothing to do with God. He didn't want it but the point was for Jesus to die so sin and Satan could be defeated and to have the resurrection.

How, why was this the case? God could defeat sin and Satan with a wave of His hand. Besides, if Jesus died to destroy sin and death, or sin and Satan...why do people still sin, and still die?

We do not have the divine nature of Jesus so we cannot put ourselves in the same league as Jesus who is God's only begotten son. We aren't considered God incarnate when humans are referred to as sons and daughters of God.

What then, is the talk of Spirit vs. flesh in the life of the believer? We are all made in God's image, and the Spirit incarnates (we are Temples) into the life of every believer.

Nowhere did Jesus say God demanded animal sacrifices.

Once again, we agree..in fact, it seems Jesus preached against the practice, quoting Hosea 6.6, overturning the tables at the Temple, preaching forgiveness with no mention of blood etc.

He taught that it is not through the scriptures that one finds God. If they have seen Jesus, they have seen the Father.

Ironic then, that his words became Scripture. I don't think he was precluding folks from the possibility of finding God through Scripture, but perhaps offering a viable alternative. Didn't he also say "search the Scriptures?

God was reaching out to all people through Jesus, not just to the Jews.

Perhaps, though he said he was only sent to the lost children of Israel. But even so, Jesus was not unique in his universalism. YHVH though Isaiah implored:

..Was it not I, YHVH? There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Savior, there is no one besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the Earth! For I am God, there is no other.

(Isaiah 45.21-22)

And also Jeremiah was called a "Prophet to the Nations".

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 44 by JehovahsWitness]


[center]
Using this logic, only Hitler can repeal Hitler's laws.
Bad logic, I'm afraid.[/center]

That conclusion is unreasonable, unbiblical and lacks all common sense. A law can only be revoked by the authority that insitgated or superceded it.

Logic,

It's bad logic.

Wars have been fought to repeal certain laws.
To the victors the spoils.

It doesn't have to BE the people who made the laws.
Whoever was around at the time that SLAVERY laws were created, were surely dead when all of those laws were repealed.

[ttruscott]

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

Indeed...except that the details of how this life is secured, especially when the repentant do indeed die, is not left out as immaterial. Such details skipped over in Ezekiel are not insignificant but are indeed the real crux of the meaning of Ezekiel's statement and answer, "how can this be since we see the repentant die?"