Why was Cain's sacrifice unacceptable?

The passage doesn't mention death at all, never mind the necessity of His death. As I have already said, somewhere in this thread, that idea makes no sense.God makes the rules. God could allow redemption of sins with silver and gold if He wanted to. He could allow redemption of sin with pizza if He wanted to. Why would He insist on His Son's death? As I have asked others: What use would God have for a dead Son?And relating back to Cain's sacrifice: what use would God have for a dead sheep? The Bible says "blood" but you say "shed blood". Instead of just giving your opinions, how about showing us where the Bible says "shed blood" is necessary for salvation? Again, that makes no sense.God makes the rules. God decides when to "reconcile" with man. Why is any "work" required? Why can't God just say "Neither do I condemn thee. Go and sin no more"? And yet, Paul specifically compared Jesus' "marriage" to the church with human marriages. In human marriages, giving your life to your partner means just that - giving your life, not dying.Your interpretation completely negates the comparison that Paul was making. All you're doing is stating an opinion. Show us where the Bible says that Jesus' death was necessary for salvation.So far, all you (and others) have done is show that Jesus' blood was necessary for our salvation. God had to tell us that we are forgiven. He had to come in human form to do that. In human form, He had blood.You (and others) have not shown that His blood had to be shed. If the Bible was so specific about it, you'd think somebody could find one example.

---

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

jaywill,I've asked you before to respond to me. Don't talk about me behind my back, especially if you're accusing me of spreading "false doctrine".Don't make me come looking for you. Interesting that you bring up the subject of communion.When Jesus died on the cross, his blood was "poured out" on the ground. It was wasted. (I can't help but think there's a connection to Onan there.)But at the last supper, Jesus referred to pouring out the wine - i.e. His blood - in the sense of pouring it into us. When we take the bread and the wine, we are symbolically making Jesus a part of us. We are literally made of what we eat and drink.It seems to me that you are diminishing the symbolism of communion by dwelling on the shedding of His blood rather than the giving of His life. In real life, I'm sure we'd get along just fine.

---

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

Let's mine a little more ore from 1 Peter, shall we?

quote:

---

1Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
1Pe 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1Pe 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
1Pe 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

---

In verse 21, Jesus left us an example - by His life - that we should follow His steps. Follow Him in death? Or in life?In verse 22, He did no sin - in His life - and He had no guile in His mouth - in His life.In verse 23, He was reviled - in His life - but He did not revile in kind - in His life. He suffered - in His life - but He didn't threaten those who hurt Him - in His life.The whole passage is about His life, not His death.He came to tell us that we are forgiven. Figuratively, He took our sins back to heaven with Him when He died. There is nothing in that passage (or anything else that you have ptresented) that suggests that it was His death that saves us. This is where you make your big mistake.

quote:

---

Lev 6:25 Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, saying, This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is killed shall the sin offering be killed before the LORD: it is most holy.
Lev 6:26 The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation.
Lev 6:27 Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy: and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in the holy place.
Lev 6:28 But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken: and if it be sodden in a brazen pot, it shall be both scoured, and rinsed in water.
Lev 6:29 All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.

---

Killing the sacrifice was initiated so that the priests could eat. Other than that, what possible reason is there for killing the sacrifice? What use does God have for a dead sheep? What use does God have for a dead Son?In Leviticus, the killing of the sacrifice was a practical necessity for the livelihood of the priestly caste. You are projecting that necessity forward to Jesus' sacrifice, where there was no practical necessity for His death. You are also projecting it backward to Cain's sacrifice, where there was no practical necessity for killing the sheep. Nonsense. The resurrection is a given. If Jesus hadn't risen from the dead, He wouldn't have been the Son of God.But His message - exemplified by His life - would still be the same. And you still have not shown that His death was "expiatory". Maybe so, but the point of a discussion is to show others what you see. Feel free to do that.

---

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

Everthing you said has been rebutted. How about an actual response?

---

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

So that's your best response? Declare victory and run away?

---

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

Already did that, I think, somewhere up above. But why not have at it again? You are misunderstanding the death of Jesus.He was the Son of God. He was sent to be a human, like one of us, to show us that God understands what it is like to be human. He was sent to tell us that God forgives us for our human foibles.But humans die, so Jesus had to die. It's part of being human. All humans do it. God could not make His point about understanding humanity if His Son wasn't fully human. Therefore, His Son had to die.Through His death, we are reconciled with God - that is, we understand that God understands us and we understand that He forgives us. The reconciliation comes from Jesus being mortal.The actual manner of His death is insignificant. If He had died of old age in His sleep, we would still be reconciled with God.(Meanwhile, there are still lots and lots and lots and lots of questions that you have left unanswered. )

---

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

Nothing that you have quoted from the New Testament indicates specifically that the shedding of Jesus' blood was necessary for forgiveness of sin. Your own references seem to indicate that Jesus had to have blood - i.e. that He had to be human - not that He had to shed it. If the New Testament is so all-fired certain about the shedding of Jesus' blood, show us.(Actually, show us in an appropriate topic. ) But WHY?That is the whole crux of the matter. WHY can't God just forgive us if He feels like it? Show us in the Bible where it says that He has to "pay the cost" for us.Can you really not see how nonsensical that idea is? God requires payment for our sins, so He sends His Son (Himself) to pay the cost? He says, "Send me a dead sheep to pay for your sins"?Suppose somebody owes me $10,000 but I decide to forgive the loan - he doesn't have to pay me any more. Do I sell my house to raise the money to "pay" myself the $10,000? Of course not. That would be idiotic.So why do you insist that that's what God would do?The bottom line for this topic is that we don't know why God favoured Abel's sacrifice over Cain's. All we know is that Cain reacted badly to God's reaction.Everything else - the shedding of blood, the "they must have known", the connection to the crucifixion - all of that you are making up.

---

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

Righteousness and love are not mutually exclusive.-------------Beyond that, I think we've said more than enough about Jesus' sacrifice in this thread. If you want to continue the discussion, start a new thread.This one is about Cain's sacrifice.

---

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

Yes, "the Lamb of God" refers to a sacrificial lamb.Remember that Cain's and Abel's sacrifice is the first example that we have of a sacrifice in the Bible. Thus, in a sense it is the "purest" example - free of any need to feed the priests, free of any pagan blood-lust, free of any shoehorning that you need to do to fit your pet doctrines.There is nothing in the story of the first sacrifice about bloodshed. You are projecting backwards from an incorrect reading of the New Testament.Instead, you should be thinking forwards: Since there was no need for shedding the lamb's blood in Genesis, there was no need for shedding the Lamb's blood in the New Testament. We can see that in all the fiction that you add to the Bible. I'm not saying that I caught something that everybody else missed. I'm just taking out all the fiction that you have added. But you're the one who is saying that an idiotic standard is "God's standard". Why would I sell my house to repay to myself a loan that I have forgiven?You're pushing an idiotic standard onto God and adding fiction to the Bible to try to back it up. That's exactly what it says:

quote:

---

Joh 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
Joh 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

---

---

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

I'm not teaching anybody to "disbelieve the gospel". I'm only pointing out the gaping holes in The Gospel According to Jaywill.The intelligent members of the board can draw their own conclusions. If you have a point, then make it. Don't resort to false accusations.The rest of your post is just fiction.Edit: spelling.This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-04-19 02:43 PM

---

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

We've been over this and over it and over it....The Lamb (capital "L" = Jesus) was part of the plan from the foundation of the earth. God knew that He would become mortal from the foundation of the earth. He knew that His mortal Self would be slain - i.e. not die of natural causes - from the foundation of the earth.None of that suggests that His death was necessary for salvation - only that it was foreknown.You have not answered the question: why would God require the death of His Son (Himself) to repay a debt owed to Himself? Why would I sell my house in order to forgive a loan owed to me?One requirement of a scriptural interpretation is that it shouldn't be idiotic.

---

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

"But WHY?" is the crux of the matter. If you can't answer that, then all of your misinterpretations are worthless.The Bible was given to us as a communication from God. If we can't understand what it says, then God was wasting His time. We have to be able to understand WHY, or our interpretation is just so much mumbo-jumbo.Since you can't answer WHY, you clearly don't understand what the Bible is trying to say to you. No. It's a question about God's ability to communicate. No. My question is concerning the why of your "procedure".God has no "procedure" for salvation. It's a done deal. The loan is forgiven. He has no need to pay Himself back in some bizarre ritual.That is the whole point of the gospel. Unfortunately, you don't seem to have received the communication. But my "standard of righteousness" is God's. I'm not the one who has made up a lot of junk that isn't in the Bible. And you still don't have an answer. Now, now. Try to read what I said. I said that the idea of God killing Himself to repay a debt to Himself is idiotic. Nice martyrdom speech, Saint Jaywill, but that isn't what I said.I said that the idea that God would kill Himself to repay a debt to Himself is idiotic.I'm sure our intelligent readers have picked up on that by now, even if you haven't. I'm sure they can also see that you're trying to make me look bad instead of substantively addressing the issue.Instead of taking this further off-topic, how about proposing a topic on the shed blood of Jesus? How about showing us (in an appropriate topic) that your plan is God's plan? -------------ABE: my apologies to AdminPD. You posted your warning while I was slowly typing.
I shall wander back toward the topic.This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-04-21 10:16 AM

---

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

Our North American aboriginal peoples have a tradition where they throw a bit of meat into the fire to thank the Creator for providing food for them. The Levites were doing the same thing.Abel gave up the best of his flock as an offering to God. He kept the second-best, third-best, etc. for his own use.Since God doesn't eat sheep (as far as we know), there was no need to kill the offering - and the Bible doesn't say that Abel did.The Cain-and-Abel story is a purer depiction of sacrifice than the Levitical law, because there were no hungry third parties (e.g. priests) involved. Therefore, the Cain-and-Abel story - as written, without fictional additions - is the one that we should project forward to the New Testament.

---

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

This is all off-topic. See Message 155. If you want to discuss Jesus' sacrifice, start a new topic.There is no indication of any sacrifices before Abel's and Cain's.
There is no indication that they were told how to sacrifice.
There is no clear indication that Abel killed his sacrifice.Let's just take it as it says it: God chose Abel's sacrifice. We don't know why.All of the assumptions and speculations about atonement are irrelevant. A sacrifice is giving something up. It doesn't matter what.

---

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

Very relevant. If Cain and Abel were "taught" how to sacrifice, why not Adam and Eve? From the information we have in Genesis, the sacrifice was completely spontaneous. And isn't that the kind that God would appreciate most anyway? But you haven't shown us any evidence, from anywhere, that Cain and Abel were told how to sacrifice. Well, no. I couldn't care less if there's any "atoning sacrifice" in all of scripture. If you can show that there is, I'll be glad to accept it. So far, you haven't shown it. (But don't show it here. That's another topic.) True. (Although it would be hard to "bring" a plant sacrifice without chopping it down.)In fact, I expect Abel probably did kill his sacrifice. I expect he probably burned a small part of it as an offering to God - like the aboriginal peoples did - and ate the rest.But that's strictly speculation. I don't pretend it's in the Bible and I don't build doctrine on it. And we don't know why it was more excellent to God. That isn't apparent at all. We don't know why Abel's offering was regarded and Cain's was not. We can not assume that it was the object itself that was "not regarded".The story of the widow's mites makes it very clear that it is not the sacrificial object that matters - it is the attitude of the giver.

---

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