|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus Was Not A Sacrifice To Forgive Sins | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
David committed adultery and had the husband killed. He admitted his guilt, but didn't make a sacrifice for atonement. Nathan said he was forgiven. Yearly atonement by the high priest was made for all sins of the people and the king as the blood of the animal was sprinkled on the mercy seat in the Holy of Holies of the Temple.
Now for the above intentional sins, the penalty should have been instant death. I believe the death penalty would not apply for the king.
No death and no sin offering, but there was forgiveness. Doesn't follow the laws in Leviticus. See above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote: I already showed you in Message 99 that the sprinkling of the blood was not for the people. The Temple wasn't around in David's time anyway. The goat is the one that supposedly took ALL the sin and it wasn't slaughtered for sacrifice. Show me by the actions of the people in the Bible that the Day of Atonement was practiced on a regular basis before the second temple. Don't quote the rules governing it, but show me where it was practiced in the Bible.
quote:Why not? Where does it say that the king is exempt? The rules were for the alien and the native-born. No favoritism! A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3047 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Since God did not require sacrifices to atone for sins, Jesus could not be an atonement sacrifice. The only real atonement for sin seems to be for us to request forgiveness from the one we have sinned against and make restitution. As we forgive those who trespass against us... I contend that the death of Jesus was not an atonement sacrifice to pay for the sins of humanity. In Isaiah and Jeremiah God says he did not and still didn't require sacrifices. Purpledawn: I contend you are not even Bible literate. EvC member Brian is a staunch atheist and he is a Bible scholar. Here is a short concise excerpt that he wrote explaining what the message of the Bible is. Please note that Brian is not saying he agrees with it or even rendering an opinion - he is just communicating what the Bible claims/says:
http://EvC Forum: Message of the Bible -->EvC Forum: Message of the Bible From the last paragraph in the post: EvC member Brian:
"The message of the bible is: God created the universe and everything in it, it was all good and God was pleased with it. One of God’s creations, man, spoiled this golden age by disobeying the one rule that God had given to them, they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As a result, the bond between man and God had been broken, the trust was taken away, God then banished mankind from the garden that He had created for them. However, all is not lost. God provided a way for Man to reconcile himself with God. He sent his only begotten Son to suffer for mankind, to suffer and die on the cross so that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. That is the message of the Bible." I am a staunch theist and I completely agree with Brian's statement. This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 09-25-2004 02:14 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Yes that is a basic summary of what the Christian Bible claims. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with the argument presented in the OP. The Hebrew Bible does not support the part about God sending his only son to suffer. My contention is that sacrifices were not required for atonement of sins, plus the guidelines given don't even apply to all sins. Therefore, Jesus was not a sacrifice to forgive all sins. A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
A yearly sacrifice is spoken of in 1 Samuel.
1:3 Year after year this man went up from his town to worship and sacrifice to the Lord Almighty at Shiloh, ... 4 Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would give portions of the meat to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters. 5 But to Hannah he gave a double portion because he loved her, and the Lord had closed her womb. 1:21 Then the man Elkanah went up with all his household to offer to the LORD the yearly sacrifice and pay his vow. 2:19 And his mother would make him a little robe and bring it to him from year to year when she would come up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. 20:6 "If your father misses me at all, then say, 'David earnestly asked leave of me to run to Bethlehem his city , because it is the yearly sacrifice there for the whole family.' IMO this yearly sacrifice is not the "Day of Atonement."Reason: Per Leviticus 16, burnt offerings and sin offerings are used on the "Day of Atonement." Per Leviticus 6:8-11, the burnt offering is burned up completely. No one eats the meat. Per Leviticus 6:26, the priest who offers the sin offering is the one who eats from the meat, not the person making the offering. A "Fellowship Offering", on the otherhand, is consumed by the one making the offering. The fat is burned as the sacrifice, not the meat. (Leviticus 3 & 7:11-21) A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
It is evident that this topic is too dangerous for discussion. I understand that agreeing with me and delving deeper into the possibilities could send a Christian into spiritual crisis, but I feel that agreeing with me does not negate the moral teachings of Jesus. Unfortunately, those who disagreed didn’t follow through to prove their point.
My viewpoint on the Hebrew Bible, is that it is written by Hebrews, for Hebrews, about Hebrews. The lamentations we read from Isaiah and Jeremiah are no different than the type of complaints we hear during protests or government elections.
Isaiah 1:23 Your rulers are rebels, companions of thieves, they all love bribes and chase after gifts. They do not defend the cause of the fatherless; the widow’s case does not come before them. The OT has many verses concerning justice, widows, orphans, and aliens. To list a few:
Ex 22:22 "You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. Leviticus 19:11-18 ...but you shall love your neighbor as yourself... De 24:19 -21"When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, you shall not go back to get it; it shall be for the alien, for the orphan, and for the widow, in order that the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands... Isaiah 1:16-17 ...Stop doing wrong, learn to do right! Seek justice, encourage the oppressed. Defend the cause of the fatherless, plead the case of the widow. Even best laid plans tend to get corrupted over time. I feel that the extensive sacrificial system grew during the second temple era. Sacrifices made a very impressive show.
Excerpt from: A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson The sacrifice rituals struck visitors as exotic, even barbarous, for most strangers came at feast-times when the quantities of sacrifices were enormous. At such times, the inner Temple was an awesome place — the screams and bellows of terrified cattle, blending with ritual cries and chants and tremendous blasts of horn and trumpet, blood everywhere... Only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, once a year on the Day of Atonement, but for festivals its curtain was rolled up so that male Jewish pilgrims, peering through the sanctuary gates, could see inside it, and the holy vessels were brought out for inspection. Each pilgrim offered at least one individual sacrifice... and this privilege was open to gentiles also. Herod’s Temple was world-famous and greatly esteemed, according to Josephus, and important gentiles offered sacrifices for pious reasons as well as to conciliate Jewish opinion. In 15 BC, for instance, Herod’s friend Marcus Agrippa made the grand gesture of offering a hecatomb (100 beasts). Personally I feel the sacrificial system served the needs of the priests more than the people. Leviticus 27 set a monetary value for people and animals, etc.Deuteronomy 18 speaks of the share due the priests. Since the Hebrews were supposedly poor slaves in Egypt, their possessions should be very basic. According to Moses (Ex 10) the Hebrews would be taking their flocks and herds with them. Two months into the desert and (Exodus 16) the Hebrews are out of food, hence the need for manna and quail. Given this scenario, the elaborate sacrificial system of Leviticus would be unreasonable and wasteful. Isaiah 1:11-17 and Jeremiah 7:21-24 state that God did not require sacrifices from his people. Just because God allowed people to make sacrifices to him, doesn’t mean that he required them. Remember, Deuteronomy 12:4 & 31 says You must not worship the Lord your God in their way. Also since in Deuteronomy 12:8 it says You are not to do as we do here today, everyone as he sees fit... apparently the Hebrews weren’t following a given system even after 40 years. In Message 17 I show that the songs of David’s time reflect the belief that God didn’t require or desire sacrifice regardless of the giver’s intentions. In Message 32 show passages from Ezekiel that show that repentance is all that is needed to be forgiven by God. Even in Jonah 3 when God sent Jonah to Nineveh to tell them they would be destroyed, the city survived because of repentance and prayer. The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth... By the decree of the king and his nobles: Do not let any man or beast, herd or flock, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish. When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened. No one has provided me with clear evidence that 1) animal sacrifices covered all sins, 2) repentance was not accepted without animal sacrifice and 3) the Levitical system was functioning in the wilderness or even before the first temple. A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Bump, because part of the thread "The Whole Jesus Thing" is heading down the path of this thread and that thread is running out of time.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
In response to my Message 127 of the "Gospel of John" thread robinrohan writes in Message 136
quote: I'm only discussing Hebrew sacrifice and since the gentleman I quoted stated that Biblical sacrifice was misunderstood, the point is that maybe the idea of food for God is a misconception. A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
Purpledawn, since you have bumped this thread back into life, where do we begin? Are you of the belief that Jesus Was NOT a Sacrifice for all mankind?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I contend that Jesus was not an atonement sacrifice for the sins of mankind.
You would need to show me in the OT that:
A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Droxyn Inactive Member |
Hi all, Newbie here. I've done a lot of reading but no posting till now. What the heck, I'll take a stab @ purpledawns criteria. This is kind of an old thread so I hope I'm not wasting my time.
Animal sacrifices for sin existed before the first temple Gen 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them. I admit that this is not a specific reference to the type of sacrificing that is being discussed. It is interesting at least to note though that Adam and Eve had sinned and so were naked. God sort of "covered" that sin with coats of skins. Did some animal have to die to provide those skins or did God just conjour them up? Anyway, It seems like Lev 1:1-4 says that the sacrifice will be an atonement for sins.{H3722 kâphar kaw-far' A primitive root; to cover (specifically with bitumen); figuratively to expiate or condone, to placate or cancel: - appease, make (an) atonement, cleanse, disannul, forgive, be merciful, pacify, pardon, to pitch, purge (away), put off, (make) reconcile (-liation).} Lev 4:24 mentions that the burnt offering before the Lord is a sin offering. I'll leave it at that I guess. Animal sacrifice atoned for all sins.Not sure what you mean here. No one animal sacrifice atoned for all sins for all time. That is why they had to keep doing it all the time. I guess I'm not sure why animal sacrifices in the OT would have to atone for all sins in order for Christ to be an atonement sacrifice for mankind. If you could maybe please elaborate a bit I will attempt a comment. It's probably a foul and doesn't count but it seems pretty clear that the NT writers understood the sacrifices of the OT to be a "pointing forward" to the coming Christ. This could have been a convenient way to further their new religion. Jesus was quoted as saying (essentially) that the scriptures spoke of Him. Again could just be inserted by the Gospel writers. Maybe on a more relevant note, it is interesting in the whole Abraham-Isaac ordeal in Gen 22:8 Abraham says: "My son, God will provide HIMSELF a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together."I though it to be an interesting play on words there. Depends on where you put the emphasis. I'll wait on your clarification for more comment. One more passage: Lev 16:30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD. Lev 16:31 It shall be a sabbath of rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls, by a statute for ever. Lev 16:32 And the priest, whom he shall anoint, and whom he shall consecrate to minister in the priest's office in his father's stead, shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen clothes, even the holy garments: Lev 16:33 And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation. Lev 16:34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses. Without sacrifice atonement was not possible ... well nuts, I've run outta time. Umm, if someone actually responds to the post then I shall continue my search... I probably will anyway. Later all!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Welcome to EvC Droxyn,
Did you read the entire thread before answering? My impression is that you didn't. Much of what you stated I have already addressed in this thread. I would like to continue this discussion with you once you have read the whole thread and understand my position. Food for thought:Gen 3:21 was not a sacrifice to atone for sins. Just because an animal is killed doesn't make it a sacrifice. The Book of Leviticus was not written before the first temple.
quote:My Opening Post (OP) Message 1: I contend that the death of Jesus was not an atonement sacrifice to pay for the sins of humanity. The animal sacrifices in Leviticus only covered unintentional sins. (This is covered in this thread) If animal sacrifices were not REQUIRED in the OT to cover sins then Jesus was not necessary as an atonment sacrifice. (Explained earlier in this thread)
quote:Provide the verses that you feel clearly show that the NT writers understood this. So read the whole thread and we can continue this discussion. Since this is an old thread, if you refer to earlier posts in this thread, please list the number as I did next to the OP above. This provides a link back to the post and people won't have to hunt for the post you were refering to. PD A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Except that you are missing the passages where alternatives to sacrifice are given. While dedicating the Temple, King Solomon also indicated that prayer can be used to obtain forgiveness (I Kings 8:46-50).
Also, look at the non-KJV translations of Hosea 14:3
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Droxyn Inactive Member |
My apologies of course. I did start to read the thread in its entirety... got bored and just went to the end. Wont happen again. Intersting topic, I learned a few things. After reading a 9 page thread at one sitting my eyes are killing me and I need some time to process what I read. OK I hate to appear like an idiot this early but how the heckles do you do a quote?
Food for thought:Gen 3:21 was not a sacrifice to atone for sins. Just because an animal is killed doesn't make it a sacrifice. I didn't mean to imply that Gen 3:21 was an example of a sacrifice. It was only meant as a provoking thought of a model in use. i.e. Adam and Eve tried to cover their nakedness themselves with the fig leaves (I wonder if it were just their ummm ... unmentionables that they felt the need to cover or their whole selves? sorry, unrelated thought) But it was God, through the death of something (whatever animals were used for the hides, unless he just conjured some) that covered their nakedness. I just see it as a potential analogy between us trying to take care of our sins through good deeds etc. but blood needs to be spilled, (like the animals providing the hides) Jesus'to cover our sins. I'll probably get hollered at for that one. Again, I'm not professing doctrine here, just an intersting thought. (Perhaps a different thread.) I'm new to the whole Forum thing and this one seams well regulated. I must depart for now, I will return. (how do you all have so much time to reply with these lengthy, well researched posts ???)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:My preference is to type it in a wordprocessing document. I can take as long as I want to work on the post and take breaks when necessary. It also makes it easier to spell check and proofread. Then when you are ready, you can just copy the information into the reply box, hit the preview button to make sure it looks the way you want, make sure your links work, and give it one last read for any oddities. Piece of cake! As for the quotes. There is a Practice Makes Perfect forum where you can practice these techniques. Once you hit the reply button and have the white reply box in front of you, look to the left and click on the dBCodes On (help). (Just above the Smilies link.) That's where the instructions for the various quotes, links, etc. That is the one I use. You will find that short paragraphs are preferred over extremely long ones. What you did in your second post is good. White space (or in the case of this forum, blue space) is our friend. Good Luck! A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024