What is "The Good News?"

[EBA]

Tell me, what is "The Good News?"

Peace be to all.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 161 by shnarkle]

Well I see you have your own interpretation and we have ours.

Not everyone interprets the bible the same way.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

Well I see you have your opinion and aren't here to debate these issues. Thanks. I'll try to remember that from now on.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 156 by Elijah John]

Jesus, if he mentioned it at all, did not emphasize the "blood".

He did:


This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt 26:28



Peace to you,

your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

That's a mention. Not a repeated emphasis. And only said, (if he really did say it), towards the end of his ministry.

Doesn't seem like the mission from the beginning. Certainly not in the opening chapters of Luke where he reads from the Isaiah scroll, nor in his most important Sermon on the Mount.

Don't forget, as 1213 so often rightly points out, that Jesus proclaimed the forgiveness of sins, and didn't tie that to his eventual blood.

When multiple people provide you with scripture refuting your stance, you either say that it wasn't repeated enough times, or that it was said at the end of Jesus' ministry and not the beginning, or that it wasn't in his most important sermon, or that it was in a gospel that can't be trusted, or that it was probably made up and not actually what Jesus said, or a bunch of other things.

Why do you debate with people when you've already made up your mind to discount any scripture that goes against your position? You pick and choose what parts of the New Testament you consider to be real and what parts you consider to be fake in order to suit your interpretation.

And you don't? Haven't you arleady made up your mind?

I cite passages which are at odds with the notion of blood sacrifice, and conventional Christians choose to ignore them, downplay them etc. But I haven't seen examples of how the bulk of Jesus teachings (God as merciful Father to the contrite) harmonize with the notion that same God demands blood.

What kind of Father needs blood in order to give himself permission to forgive sin?

[shnarkle]

Was Jesus offerered on an altar or in the Temple?

He pointed out that his body was the temple. His sacrifice does away with the need for a temple. The temple was a type, and is even pointed out to be fashioned after the temple in heaven.

No, he died on a Roman cross.

Yep, and he was the innocent victim crucified which is essentially and effectively what the sacrificial system pointed to.

Was Jesus killed by the hand of a Priest?

He is the high priest who lays down his life willingly.

No, he was killed by Roman executioners.

You might just as well quibble over the type of rocks used to build the temple. God's heavenly temple isn't made with the same materials, nor does it require the earthly temple, sacrificial system, instruments, etc. be held to the same standards; they can't be held to those standards. What is essential though is that innocent blood be shed. You do see that illustrated within the Old Testament, don't you? Abraham didn't have a temple to sacrifice his son, did he? Was Abraham a Jew or a Levite? Was Abraham a priest?

To see this martyrdom as a "sacrifice for sin" is an interpretation. A theologian's attempt to find meaning in the unexpected death of the "Messiah".

It's hardly a stretch given that the culture revolves around the sacrifice of innocent unblemished victims for the forgiveness of sin.

Once again, didn't Jesus proclaim forgiveness and the Father's mercy, before his execution was even on the horizon?

Of course, but he also proclaimed it within the immediate contexts of making one's path straight by repentance. The authors then have him point out that they be forgiven "for they know not what they do". This is covered under unintentional sin, and it is no coincidence that the authors have him cry that out right from the cross.

Didn't the contrite criminal on the cross obtain forgiveness without seeing his fellow victim (Jesus) as a "sacrifice for sin"?

EXACTLY!!! However, he probably knows that he's completely screwed up his life without even knowing why or how. His best planned intentions were all for nought. He didn't know what he was doing. He has no comprehension of the power and effect that "missing the mark" had over him.

The real point here is that the gospel writer's audience is supposed to see the connection between the innocent blood crying out for forgiveness upon those who don't know what they're doing. An observant Jewish audience would have no problem seeing that connection to the sacrificial system. The forgiveness is what allows the sinner to enter into Paradise, and Jesus is forgiving them right from the cross itself. The author really can't make it much more blatant than that.

[shnarkle]

What kind of Father needs blood in order to give himself permission to forgive sin?

The God of the Old Testament. That's what the temple's alter was for. People would bring thier unblemished offerings to be burnt upon the alter to seal the deal on their forgiveness. Again, it should be noted that those sacrifices only covered unintentional sin, and Jesus came to fulfill All of the law; not just those aspects that can be covered with repentance.

So I"m not taking the position that one is more important than the other or discounting one over the other. I'm pointing out that he covers the entire spectrum of the Mosaic law.

[jgh7]

[Replying to post 156 by Elijah John]

Jesus, if he mentioned it at all, did not emphasize the "blood".

He did:


This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. Matt 26:28



Peace to you,

your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

That's a mention. Not a repeated emphasis. And only said, (if he really did say it), towards the end of his ministry.

Doesn't seem like the mission from the beginning. Certainly not in the opening chapters of Luke where he reads from the Isaiah scroll, nor in his most important Sermon on the Mount.

Don't forget, as 1213 so often rightly points out, that Jesus proclaimed the forgiveness of sins, and didn't tie that to his eventual blood.

When multiple people provide you with scripture refuting your stance, you either say that it wasn't repeated enough times, or that it was said at the end of Jesus' ministry and not the beginning, or that it wasn't in his most important sermon, or that it was in a gospel that can't be trusted, or that it was probably made up and not actually what Jesus said, or a bunch of other things.

Why do you debate with people when you've already made up your mind to discount any scripture that goes against your position? You pick and choose what parts of the New Testament you consider to be real and what parts you consider to be fake in order to suit your interpretation.

And you don't? Haven't you arleady made up your mind?

I cite passages which are at odds with the notion of blood sacrifice, and conventional Christians choose to ignore them, downplay them etc. But I haven't seen examples of how the bulk of Jesus teachings (God as merciful Father to the contrite) harmonize with the notion that same God demands blood.

What kind of Father needs blood in order to give himself permission to forgive sin?

I don't reject large chunks of the bible to suit my own interpretation. I don't accuse apostles of being misguided, of inventing their own religions, of lying and misleading others on what Jesus said. Ultimately, I don't accuse them of being false prophets.

[Elijah John]

I don't reject large chunks of the bible to suit my own interpretation. I don't accuse apostles of being misguided, of inventing their own religions, of lying and misleading others on what Jesus said. Ultimately, I don't accuse them of being false prophets.

Don't misrepresent what I am saying. You and I no doubt disagree, but I do not believe the Apostles wrote any of the Gospels. The actual authors were not eyewitnesses. Most schloars are in agreement on this.

The Apostles didn't mislead us, but the authors of Matthew, Mark Luke and John may well have. And posibly Jesus too, but I doubt this was intentional on Jesus part.

And yes, conventional Christians do reject large chunks of the Bible to suit your Pauline blood theology.

Or else, where is there any mention of any of Jesus actual teachings in the Apostles or the Nicean Creed?

[Elijah John]

What kind of Father needs blood in order to give himself permission to forgive sin?

The God of the Old Testament. That's what the temple's alter was for. People would bring thier unblemished offerings to be burnt upon the alter to seal the deal on their forgiveness. Again, it should be noted that those sacrifices only covered unintentional sin, and Jesus came to fulfill All of the law; not just those aspects that can be covered with repentance.

So I"m not taking the position that one is more important than the other or discounting one over the other. I'm pointing out that he covers the entire spectrum of the Mosaic law.

How many God's are there? How many do you believe in?

Plus, the way the Father is portrayed in the Hebrew Bilbe is mixed. Yes, there is an institution of blood atonement. But there are also passages, (more than a few) to indicate that God never needed, nor did He ever want blood sacrfice of any kind, human or animal.

The respected Jewish sage Mainmonides sees the blood cult as a pagan vestige. He taught that YHVH tolerated that form of worship for a time, because in additon to going from many gods to one God, to abandon the prectice of blood sacrifice all at once would be just too big a change for God's people.

They now worshipted the one true God YHVH, who was beyond idols, but were not yet ready to let go of their blood offering to God.

I realize that Maimonodes is not authoritiative on this forum, but there is Scriptural support for his position.

Namely, Hosea 6.6, which Jesus quotes, and Micah 6.6-8, among others. God's people, with the help of the Prophets, outgrew the babaric pracitice of blood sacrifice.

And how do you deny that Jesus taught the Father's mercy and forgiveness without the need for shedding blood? He did this in the Lord's prayer, the Beattitudes and the Parables.

But defenders of blood appeasment just can't or won't address those facts.

Once again, where is there any]/i] mention for the necessity of bloodshed in the Lord's prayer? Jesus and the Prophets did not specify what kind of sins are covered by repentance, simply taught that repentance and appeals for the Father's mercy, and being willing to forvgive others was what God wanted.

And defenders of blood atonement accuse me of ignoring large chunks, and picking and choosing?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 168 by shnarkle]

My position on what, specifically?


The kingdom being present today. I just thought of one. When Jesus responds to John the Baptists request, his reply is that the blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk.

Quote:
Bible resources and helps are freely available. You could do your own search.


Thanks, I just googled "the kingdom present today" and got a few that look promising. You seem to know what you're talking about, so I thought you might have a few more quotes handy.

Here are a few:

Matthew 12:22-29; Matthew 10:1; Luke 10:18-20; John 18:36; Matthew 28:18.
Also Colossians 1:13; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:5-6.

[shnarkle]

What kind of Father needs blood in order to give himself permission to forgive sin?

The God of the Old Testament. That's what the temple's alter was for. People would bring thier unblemished offerings to be burnt upon the alter to seal the deal on their forgiveness. Again, it should be noted that those sacrifices only covered unintentional sin, and Jesus came to fulfill All of the law; not just those aspects that can be covered with repentance.

So I"m not taking the position that one is more important than the other or discounting one over the other. I'm pointing out that he covers the entire spectrum of the Mosaic law.

How many God's are there? How many do you believe in?

Plus, the way the Father is portrayed in the Hebrew Bilbe is mixed. Yes, there is an institution of blood atonement. But there are also passages, (more than a few) to indicate that God never needed, nor did He ever want blood sacrfice of any kind, human or animal.

The respected Jewish sage Mainmonides sees the blood cult as a pagan vestige. He taught that YHVH tolerated that form of worship for a time, because in additon to going from many gods to one God, to abandon the prectice of blood sacrifice all at once would be just too big a change for God's people.

They now worshipted the one true God YHVH, who was beyond idols, but were not yet ready to let go of their blood offering to God.

I realize that Maimonodes is not authoritiative on this forum, but there is Scriptural support for his position.

Namely, Hosea 6.6, which Jesus quotes, and Micah 6.6-8, among others. God's people, with the help of the Prophets, outgrew the babaric pracitice of blood sacrifice.

And how do you deny that Jesus taught the Father's mercy and forgiveness without the need for shedding blood? He did this in the Lord's prayer, the Beattitudes and the Parables.

But defenders of blood appeasment just can't or won't address those facts.

Once again, where is there any]/i] mention for the necessity of bloodshed in the Lord's prayer? Jesus and the Prophets did not specify what kind of sins are covered by repentance, simply taught that repentance and appeals for the Father's mercy, and being willing to forvgive others was what God wanted.

And defenders of blood atonement accuse me of ignoring large chunks, and picking and choosing?

I just pointed out the distinction between the two. Evidently you either didn't catch it, or have chosen to igrnore it. Why shouldn't I assume this isn't a pattern for you?

It makes no sense to offer a sacrifice when one is sinning intentionally. If you read the texts they go into this in detail. God rejects their sacrifices because they're simply pretending that sacrifice covers sins they have no intention of repenting from.

There's a reason for sacrifice, but it has to be ritualized first in order to get it ingrained in one's consciousness. Even when the ritual is no longer necessary, one will still see that need for sacrifice in their lives. Paul points this out. He says to sacrifice one's life daily.

Ask anyone who has goals and you will find that they understand that they have to make sacrifices today for future rewards. They don't just say they're sorry and ask for forgiveness, and voila they're the CEO of their own fortune 500 company.

God's will is to follow his law which requires obedience. His will when carried out doesn't require sacrifice. This should be obvious, yet somehow we're all supposed to pretend that obedience to God's law negates the reality of disobedience? The prayer asks that his will be done on earth as it is in heaven, which presumably shows that his will isn't yet being carried out on earth, right?

Again, repenting from what one has done intentionally requires a contrite heart and the willingness to repent and make restitution. He isn't going to go around telling people to offer sacrifice when they haven't rejected his message, and they can't offer sacrifice when they don't even know that they've sinned in the first place.

The gospel writers are illustrating that God provides the sacrifice. One could even look at it as if God sinned and is providing the sacrifice to reconcile the torn relationship between the human and the divine. Even so, God shows us the way which everyone who wants that reconciliation must follow; i.e. the sacrifice of oneself. Anyone who would make the attempt to save themselves will lose. God's will is total surrender of oneself; a total sacrifice of oneself, and one's own life.

Turning from one's own way to God's way is essentially the same message. The problem is that if we ignore the fact that we are going to make mistakes, we're setting ourselves up for disaster, self loathing, self hatred, etc. The sacrifice covers that aspect, and can't be left out of the gospel message. To leave that out is to leave it up to us to not make mistakes ever again.

Prior to Christ's sacrifice you might notice that he instructs a healed leper to go and show himself to the priest. Guess what that requires? It requires a sacrificial offering be made.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 178 by shnarkle]

How is sacrfice "ritualized" today? I suppose one could say that it is in the RCC, in the form of the Eucharist.

The other sense of the word "sacrifice" you are alluding to, are froms of sacrifice that have nothing to do with bloodletting. Offering one's life in service, yes, is metaphorical "sacrifice". But that has nothing to do with blood atonement for the forgiveness of sins.

Again, why would Almighty God, whom Jesus describes as a merciful Father, need blood in order to give himself permission to forgive the contrite?

Spirits do not need blood. And God is Spirit.