Bailey writes:
That's irrelevant '(for the purposes of discussion)', as the actual purpose of the discussion was for you to ...
quote:
' ... show when the FATHER first requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the ORIGINAL TESTAMENTS?'
Which is what the purpose of and question in Message 78, Message 82, Message 84, Message 87 and Message 89 have always been.
This discussion started out with your repeated denial that Jesus was a sacrifice or that his death was even necessary allied to a demand that I support claims of same from scriptures-of-your-choosing. It has morphed it's way into a multi-facetted, not to say baffling, attempt to ringfence the discussion to one of your liking.
In it's current stage of evolution, the issue of Jesus being a sacrifice or no has been moved off centre stage in favour of a target called
the doctrine of p-sub. Your m.o. hasn't altered however; the demand being that claims (whether psub or Jesus-as-sacrifice) be supported in a manner and from a range of scripture proscribed by
you.
You say the purpose
'has always been' as you (somewhat curiously*) describe it above. Yet when we shift back just prior to the posts listed above we see that your
then purpose sought
Jesus' imprimateur on the notion of his being a sacrifice. Which shifts things beyond the FATHER and beyond the ORIGINAL TESTAMENTS and into the GOSPELS but not as far as THE EPISTLES.
Here are some supporting post references showing variability in this supposed unwavering purpose of your. (Do note my having accomodated your request re: Jesus not having referred to himself as a sacrifice, at message 76 - I'm pretty sure I've stated that the father didn't either, somewhere along the line.)
Bailey at message 72
quote:
Again, Brother Joshua never referred to himself as a sacrifice, but rather a ransom. Please, demonstrate otherwise - so as I may concede, within a good conscience, to the seemingly peculiar theory many attempt to put forth.
Bailey at message 73
quote:
For the record, I am not the one who has continually ignored the request, or rather - challenge, to provide any portion of scripture, apocrypha or otherwise, wherein Joshua the Anointed One refers to himself as a sacrifice. That has been your interesting challenge repeatedly kicked to the curb.
iano at message 76
quote:
Not having a photographic memory the best I can do is say that I don't recall Jesus ever referring to himself as a sacrifice.
-
My immovable positon has been that (eg) Pauls' describing of Jesus-as-sacrifice is as accurate and authorititive a description of the situation as would Jesus' describing of himself so - were it that Jesus actually did so. And that barring some semantical rabbit-from-a-hat trick on your part, in which the word
sacrifice...
quote:
1Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
quote:
26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself.
...doesn't mean sacrifice, Jesus-as-sacrifice is plainly established by scripture. Not scripture according to the father, not scripture according to the son. Just according to scripture.
-
And so we come we to the end of our discussion, Bailey. Or perhaps 'exchange' would be a better term for it seeing as it's only ever been a dance. It might well be that you have worthwhile objections to make to the doctrine of p-sub (although a denial of
Jesus as sacrifice isn't one of them). Whatever those merits might be, they are, to my mind, buried in eloquent verbosity which, when distilled down, reveals yet more attempts at ringfencing the discussion to one of your own liking. You can hardly expect that I would collude with you in this.
God bless for now.
Ian
-
* This is what I mean by 'somewhat curiously'
quote:
' ... show when the FATHER first requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin via the ORIGINAL TESTAMENTS?'
I've never suggested that the father requested animal sacrifices as a means of atoning for sin. Indeed, the orthodox position is that animal sacrifices (which were requested by the father) covered, but didn't atone for sin. I'm not quite sure what you're attempting to do here - other than erect, perhaps, a similar strawman to the one you erected when demanding I demonstrate where Jesus/the father (but not the epistles) refers to Jesus as a sacrifice
Given that Jesus wasn't an animal sacrifice (what with him being God..) I fail to see what an admission that the father never requested animal sacrifices as an atonement would do to advance your position. The discussion being over, I'm not requiring an answer from you on this - but am merely pointing out why I view your approach an impossible one to navigate.
If you do provide a rationale (by way of information) however, perhaps you could go one step further and tell me (in as plain a speak as you can manage) what you make of John the Baptist's description of Jesus as the 'lamb of God'. I've always been curious about how your non-sacrificial view deals with that one.
Thanks
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
