Motivations

[Elijah John]

The story of God supposedly commanding Abraham to sacrifice is son Isaac.

The notion of Jesus being crucified to supposedly "pay for our sins".

In each of these stories, is God (the Father) glorified?

In the first, is God glorified by "testing" Abraham in this manner?

Or is the Hebrew nation attempting to glorify Abraham for his "great faith" and thus justify it's own existence as God's "chosen people". (disclaimer, I do not disagree with the notion that the Jews are God's "chosen" but for different reasons).

And the story of the crucifiixion of Jesus "paying for our sins".

Again, who is glorified?

The story paints the Father as bloodthirsty, as demanding satisfaction, blood satisfaction. And all the glory goes to the victim, who heroically "dies in our stead".

But God clears His own name in all this...

"I desire mercy not sacrifice ".

Questions for debate....

Do these stories of "sacrifice" do the Father an injustice?

or if the Father is glorified in all this, how is the Father glorified by demanding sacrifice?

[tam]

Adam sold his offspring to Death. (The Destroyer, Abaddon/Apollyon, the King of the Abyss; the last enemy to be defeated)

Could we have the scriptures that support this contention please?

I am not sure if there is one that specifically states that, but there is this:

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

So death entered the world through a man (Adam). He gave death entrance into this world. He subjected his offspring to death.

He of course did not think that HE would himself be subject to death, because the Adversary (the son of destruction) said to him (and Eve) that they would not die if they ate of that tree.

Unfortunately for them (and their offspring), they could NOT eat from that tree and yet live... like God. They could not know good (life) AND bad (death), and yet live... UNLESS they were to also eat of the tree of Life (Christ), and live forever.

God does not need to eat of the tree of life in order to live forever. The tree of life (Christ) came from God to begin with.


There is also this:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

Adam made that decision also; that brought death to all people. Since we came from Adam (physically speaking), we inherit his flesh after he fell; and the sin (error) in that flesh. Sin and death is in our flesh; or else it would not get sick or die.

(On top of that, we also all sin)



There are probably more details than that, but that is what I understand at this time.




Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

I wonder if Adam even knew what fruit his wife gave him before he ate.

Yes, I remember this being at least implied when I was a child, in some church or another, because I remember picturing Eve disguising the fruit somehow and sneaking it to her poor unsuspecting husband.

It is a doctrine that (some) men have used to uphold themselves as innocent victims and women as temptresses who keep leading them into sin.

However, it is not scriptural.

Adam was not deceived, so Adam knew what he was doing. Adam was also WITH Eve when she took some of the fruit and ate it. So he did not unsuspectingly eat of that tree.


And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 1Timothy 2:14

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Genesis 3:6



Peace to you and to yours,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Elijah John]

I'm intrigued. This is a different and more thoughtful slant on the blood atonement notion. One problem though, ransom implies payment ...ransom implies DEMANDED payment. Question, to whom is the ransom paid, and what does that say about the one who demands it?

I cannot answer for Ted, as I am not sure what more he believes on the subject, but...

The ransom is paid to the one Adam sold his offspring TO. Adam did not sell his offspring to God.

Adam sold his offspring to Death. (The Destroyer, Abaddon/Apollyon, the King of the Abyss; the last enemy to be defeated)

I like this theory better than the "paid for our sins" theology, because it upholds the honor of the Father.

Still, isn't this dependent on a literal reading of the Garden tale?

Christ gave His life in exchange; hence he purchased men back for God with HIS blood and HIS life.

That sounds legalistic to me. Is that how God operates? I dunno...perhaps. But I prefer to see him as a loving and patient Father, who forgives freely, and is not bound to bargain with death OR Satan.

God sacrificed His Son for our sake... but not because He demanded a sacrifice to Himself.

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

I like the Hosea quote, and believe that reflects the nature of the Father. But what loving Father sacrifices His Son for anyone's sake, and not Himself? And God cannot sacrifice Himself, He's God. And the fact that Christ did subject Himself to martyrdom, demonstrates he is not God, imo.

Christ laying down His own life for the cause of His ministry of proclaiming the Father's grace and mercy is one thing, but as a "ransom"?

But because that is what was required to purchase us back from the one the first Adam sold us TO.

Life for life.

Literalistic and legaistic, imo.

I shared a little bit on this forum (and more fully elsewhere if you are interested) what I received from my Lord regarding the written law on eye for eye... life for life. That this was not meant to be about vengeance, but rather that it was meant to be about GIVING life... for life. Not taking life. Christ taught the truth of this... not just in word but also in deed.

He even said that love has no one greater than this: that one lay down his life for another.

Again, for the Cause...not for legal transaction. That's how I see it anyway.

Hope that helps, EJ!

Peace to you, and to your house,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

Thanks Tammy, peace and blessings to you and yours.

[Elijah John]

Yah isn't demanding sacrifice, He requires it because He is a JUST God and Perfect being. Any violation of His law requires sacrifice to atone for it. Abraham showed he was willing to sacrifice.

Is it just to demand death (sacrifice) for any violation of the Divine Law? What human judge would do this, even Moses didn't go that far. Does God have a less developed sense of justice and mercy than human judges? I find that hard to believe.

Yah sacrificed in Eden by granting dominion over the earth to mankind. Just look at how that sacrifice has been on Him with mankind turning against Him. At least during the millenial kingdom we will see how much better it is to follow His law since Yeshua regained that dominion by being perfect under the law and gained His inheritance of the earth.

That theological speculation is above my pay grade.

BTW, the Israelites are the chosen people.

No disagreement from me on that...

Each of the other 70 nations have another El over them,

Back then? Not sure of the number. Today, many nations worship YHVH, unofficially, if not officially.

Yah took a subset of the Hebrew nation for His own to be His inheritance and priesthood by passing the priestly line through Shem/Eber down to Abraham. IMO Yah was testing Abraham to be worthy of that honor.

Subset? Shem/Eber?

To be a servant of the Father, we must all be willing to sacrifice for others. Yes Yah was glorified by finding a worth line as His priesthood in Abraham in whose line Yeshua was sent to regain dominion back to His son.

Notions of priesthood and dominion aside, I don't see how Yahshua's martyrdom glorifies the Father. Except to suggest that His ways are worth dying for.

So the Israelites were the chosen priesthood of Yah until Yeshua who still retains the role of high priest. But there are still active promises for the descendants of Abraham. Being anti-semetic is a good way to bring down His wrath. He will bless those that bless Israel and curse those that curse them. They are still His people.

Not sure about the curse, but I do believe the blessings are on those who bless Abraham, the Spiritual and physical descendents of Abraham and Israel.

[Yahu]

Yah took a subset of the Hebrew nation for His own to be His inheritance and priesthood by passing the priestly line through Shem/Eber down to Abraham/Isaac/Jacob. IMO Yah was testing Abraham to be worthy of that honor.

Subset? Shem/Eber?

Yes, Israel was a subset of the Hebrews. All descendants of Eber/Heber are Hebrews. Shem was son of Noah that carried the priestly line down to his descendant Eber/Heber, his successor. All descendants of Eber are Hebrews. Job was a Hebrew but not an Israelite. The Moabites were Hebrews. They were descent of Lot who was a Hebrew.

Yah took the Hebrew nation and split off the priestly line from under the 70 nation division by taking on Israel as his priestly line separated out of the 70 nations. Israel became a separate nation under Yah's authority, not the founder of their family line.

An individual that is Israelite is always a Hebrew BUT all Hebrews are not Israelite. Jews are those of the nation of Judah so all Jews are Israelite but not all Israelite are Jews.

Jews are a subset of Israelites which are a subset of the Hebrews. All Hebrews are semetic, ie descent of Shem.

There are ALWAYS 70 nations. It isn't by border but by the 70 descendants of Noah that were the national fathers, the national El. Your nation is dependent on who you are descent from. For example, the Canaanites are descent of Canaan, one of the 70 founding fathers. The 70 nations were divided up during the later lifetime of Noah among his descendants when the world was divided (during the days of Peleg). There is a spiritual principality over each of those nations. Yah took His priesthood out from under that authority and put them under His own authority.

The day of atonement had a sacrifice for the sins of the gentile nations. 70 bulls were offered as sacrifice for the other nations. One for each gentile nation. In the early days, those nations were one people group.

[ttruscott]

Thank you. I know these verse...I guess it was the word sold that got me off balance...

Adam sold his offspring to Death. (The Destroyer, Abaddon/Apollyon, the King of the Abyss; the last enemy to be defeated)

Could we have the scriptures that support this contention please?

I am not sure if there is one that specifically states that, but there is this:

For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

So death entered the world through a man (Adam). He gave death entrance into this world. He subjected his offspring to death.

Yes. I understand it this way also.

There is also this:

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned--

Adam made that decision also; that brought death to all people. Since we came from Adam (physically speaking), we inherit his flesh after he fell; and the sin (error) in that flesh. Sin and death is in our flesh; or else it would not get sick or die.

Unless you have decided that your theology has been made perfect by the Spirit who is leading you, I would suggest you look again at this...

Sin entered the world through one man and death through sin unto all people as mentioned already. But I want to ask how, if both the serpent and Eve sinned (three times) before Adam, how did sin enter the world with him? To my mind there is only one way this could be true and that is if Adam was already a sinner when he was sown into the garden as the first person brought to the world.

Then I want to look at the idea that death came to us all through Adam because we were all sinners...which is usually thought to mean that death AND sin came to us from Adam but which is not actually stated. Adam's death came to us all because we were all sinners, perhaps already just like it is hinted Adam was when he got here.

I do know that in Romans 5:19 For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. were made seems to be the end of this discussion but a look at the word's meaning tells us it also means to show oneself to be (already) or to prove oneself to be (already) ...in this case, a sinner, which in fact supports my contention as well as it does orthodoxy.

Since I do not pay mere lip service to GOD's holiness and think at the same time HE can create people sinners by putting them into Adam but believe HE must have made every person in HIS image as ingenuously innocent, I think HIS attributes support my contention better than they support the blasphemy of orthodoxy's claim HE creates evil people by having them born as human.

So, while I accept that we inherit death from Adam so that Christ need only die once for all, I do not accept that we inherit any sin from him as it contravenes GOD's holiness and loving kindness.

[tam]

Peace EJ!

I'm intrigued. This is a different and more thoughtful slant on the blood atonement notion. One problem though, ransom implies payment ...ransom implies DEMANDED payment. Question, to whom is the ransom paid, and what does that say about the one who demands it?

I cannot answer for Ted, as I am not sure what more he believes on the subject, but...

The ransom is paid to the one Adam sold his offspring TO. Adam did not sell his offspring to God.

Adam sold his offspring to Death. (The Destroyer, Abaddon/Apollyon, the King of the Abyss; the last enemy to be defeated)

I like this theory better than the "paid for our sins" theology, because it upholds the honor of the Father.

Still, isn't this dependent on a literal reading of the Garden tale?

Yes, for the most part. (I add 'for the most part' because some things in that tale are symbolic of what they represent. For example, the Tree of Life is Christ.)

Christ gave His life in exchange; hence he purchased men back for God with HIS blood and HIS life.

That sounds legalistic to me. Is that how God operates? I dunno...perhaps. But I prefer to see him as a loving and patient Father, who forgives freely, and is not bound to bargain with death OR Satan.

Consider this:

God does not break His word. If He did, then His covenants would be meaningless, and we would not know if we can trust Him or not.

God gave the earth to Adam to govern.

Hence, Adam was free to do with it and the life upon it, as he chose. Adam chose to grant Death/death entrance into the world. In effect, selling all living things in the world (remember they had been given to Adam by God to govern) to Death - in exchange for Adam knowing both life and death (good and bad). Adam also believed - because of the Adversary's lie - that he could know these things and not die, like God.

Christ purchased those lives BACK for God.

So the payment was to Death.

(That being said, those who are in Christ are also forgiven their own sins... there is no judgment for them; His blood covers them. His blood speaks for them. He is teaching and subduing them now.)

God sacrificed His Son for our sake... but not because He demanded a sacrifice to Himself.

"I desire mercy, not sacrifice."

I like the Hosea quote, and believe that reflects the nature of the Father. But what loving Father sacrifices His Son for anyone's sake, and not Himself? And God cannot sacrifice Himself, He's God. And the fact that Christ did subject Himself to martyrdom, demonstrates he is not God, imo.

Christ laying down His own life for the cause of His ministry of proclaiming the Father's grace and mercy is one thing, but as a "ransom"?

Christ is not God, Himself.

Christ laid down His life for those He loves. If to proclaim truth despite threats to His life... then to proclaim truth. If to give His life as a ransom, then to give His life as a ransom. One need not cancel out the other.

But because that is what was required to purchase us back from the one the first Adam sold us TO.

Life for life.

Literalistic and legaistic, imo.

Why would that be a bad thing? Especially if you consider that in this case, what you call legalistic... is just God keeping His word and not lying?


Life for life is part of the law, if you recall (like eye for eye). But this was not truly meant that one should take (demand) life for life... but rather that one GIVE (offer) life for life. This is part of what my Lord taught me. The whole thing I shared elsewhere.



And if Israel had understood that, perhaps more would have recognized Jaheshua as the Messiah.




Peace again to you and yours; and thank you for your wish of peace to me and mine,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy