Why was Cain's sacrifice unacceptable?

quote:

---

No,

​

Abel gave up something valuable to him (a fine piece of lifestock), rather than the seconds (the fruit that lay on the ground). That is what is important to sacrifice. The giving up of something that is important to you, and the attitude that goes with it.

---

I'm disinclined toward replies that start with "NO". It means the thinker wants it his way. You may have it.

I don't see where you've shown that Jesus' death was the sacrifice. Could you explain that a little more thoroughly? As I have said, the Lawmaker can "justify" people any way He chooses. Why would He choose a silly way?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put [him] to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

---

It say when someone makes his soul an offering for sin, as in "burnt offerings and sacrifice", a sheep or lamb isn't refered to as him in the Bible. It also says when you make this persons soul an offering for sin he shall see his seed (offspring). This is Isaiah (about 700b.c) talking to Israel about there future messsiah. It also says the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand, (Luke15:7)Why choose such a silly way? I don't know to show his love maybe...This message has been edited by Rainman2, 04-07-2006 09:37 PMThis message has been edited by Rainman2, 04-07-2006 09:38 PM

I'm sorry but I'm still not seeing anything that indicates that a death is necessary for a sacrifice. There are whole threads, for example here about whether or not Isaiah's prophecies referred to Jesus. I would caution you not to take it for granted that what you have been taught will go unchallenged. It sounds to me like you're proposing a scenario something like this:God says, "You people owe me big time, so here's the deal. You kill my Son and we'll call it even."Can you see why I call that a silly solution? Why wouldn't God just say, "Let's call it even."?Can you show me where there is any love in that scenario?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

One point.Isaiah was not talking about a future messiah. In the 7-8, he was specificlaly talking about how his son was going to be a sign to king Ahaz.In Isaiah 53, he was talking ABOUT Israel.

I know that it is taught that Isaiah 53 is about the nation of Israel but it's simply not true...For one thing it says

quote:

---

Isaiah53:9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.

---

Without all the other evidence, how could it be said of Israel he had done no violence or never used deceit.

Let's take that to the other thread. Then we can discuss it in CONTEXT.This particular thread is not about Isaiah, but Cain's sacrifice.

It wasn't by killing him that God called it even, but that he took all the punishment of sin upon himself. So that noone can boast about there own righteousness, since "by grace you are saved through faith". That is why John the Baptist came first saying "repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand" and "O, generation of vipers who hath warned ye to flee from the wrath to come". Because if people are still righteous in there own eyes then they would not see the signifigance of Jesus taking their place. Anyway I guess it shows love that he didn't have to die but chose to, because a Judge does have power to waive a fee but a righteous judge would not let every guilty person go free. But I think he sees that the people who accepted Jesus were sorry for their sin but the people who didn't, didn't want to admit they needed to be saved, or admit to themselves that they were sinfull. And could God have redeemed us in another way?, I don't know maybe, but even if I question his ways I don't question his wisdom.

Jehovah's Witnesses believe Abel was the first "witness." (Later ones would have included Noah, Abraham, Jeremiah, Jesus, etc.) If we think of Abel as a "witness" (irrespective of what we may think of the modern-day religious organization), does that affect our understanding of why God found his sacrifice or offering acceptable but rejected Cain's?

You're assuming that your conclusion is correct. I'm trying to tell you that Jesus didn't take their place. Transferring the punishment to Jesus makes no sense. Why wouldn't God just waive the punishment? Choosing to die when you don't have to sounds more like suicide than heroism. Where did you get the idea that Jesus "chose" to die? Remember that the Judge we are talking about is God. He can do whatever he wants.

quote:

---

Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

---

Sounds pretty much like He did let every guilty person go free.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

A person becomes saved when they believe that Jesus is the son of God and that God raised him from the dead. The bible makes it clear that he died in our place. So I guess the big question is: Do you beleive that Jesus is the Son of God, if he wasn't he was a liar but if he was then why did he let himself be crucified if not for our redemption.

If it's clear, then show us where the Bible says that. I have already asked you why you think Jesus "let" Himself be crucified.I have also asked you to explain why a death is necessary for redemption. That is the "big question" with regard to this topic.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Romans 5:8

quote:

---

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

---

[quote] John 10:17-18

quote:

---

Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.-Jesus

---

Hebrews 2:14

quote:

---

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

---

(Don't be shy about explaining things instead of just using bare quotes. )Romans 5:8 says that "Christ died for us" but does it suggest that He died "in out place"? We all still have to die anyway, just like He did. (And before you mention "spiritual death", that would probably be a different topic. )I can see that Romans 5:8 is talking about Jesus becoming mortal for us - i.e. to tell us the Good News - but I'm not quite seeing that He took our place.-------------Similarly, in John 10:17-18, the emphasis is on Jesus' life, not His death. He laid down His life (as if on an altar) as a sacrifice - but we come back to the original question, what use would God have for a dead sheep? What use would God have for a dead Son?Again, it doesn't seem like the death is the important factor.-------------Hebrews 2:14 takes you into dangerous territory.

quote:

---

... that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil

---

It sounds like you're suggesting that Jesus' death was necessary to defeat "the devil" - but that would suggest that "the devil" was a powerful adversary of God. If that was so, God would not be all-powerful.I come back to square one: God made the law. God decides how it is enforced. Why could God not just forgive us without going through the ritual of killing His Son?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

For us in our place same diffrence, if it wasn't in our place then what did it accomplish. If he became mortal simply to be able to communicate with us then afterwards he could have just jumped back into heaven. If he was the Son of God and was crucified then he must have let it happen, but your right life is better than death, because if he didn't rise from the dead everything else would be meaningless. In John 10:18 he says "no man tacketh it from me" and in 17 "that I might take it up again". How could he take it up again if he never laid it down. And if he layed it down by the way he lived what diffrence would their be when he took it up again, would he stop being the way he was?It defeated the devil in his purpose to destroy our life not his.It wasn't just God killing his Son, without the ressurection from the dead it wouldn't be "the gospel". And this was God's plan before the law and even before the beginning of the world.First Peter1:18-21 is a pretty good summary of what I'm trying to say