Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why was Cain's sacrifice unacceptable?
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 151 of 227 (305607)
04-21-2006 4:50 AM


The more I debate this particular subject the more it really becomes clear to me of why the Cain and Abel story is conveyed as it is.
This embryonic record of God's approval and disapproval is foundational to the whole rest of the Bible. It is not a matter of Abel's opinion or Cain's opinion. It is absolutely a matter of what God will accept or not in the manner in which we approach Him.
If someone wants to say that they could believe that God accepts Abel because in English his name comes first in the alphabet before Cain's name, maybe they could. One could argue that it had nothing to do with blood at all.
But where does the wieght of the rest of the Scripture stand?
And if Christ was slain "from the foundation of the world" as Ringo (almost) concedes, then why would God not hint so during "the foundation of the world" in the Cain and Abel record?
I think one has to work harder to steer the symbolism AWAY from Christ's death rather than towards it.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 04:51 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 04:52 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 05:03 AM

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 152 of 227 (305614)
04-21-2006 5:46 AM


None of that suggests that His death was necessary for salvation - only that it was foreknown.
You know it appears that Cain brought his offering to God first and then Abel brought his:
"And in the coarse of time Cain brought an offering to Jehovah from the fruit of the ground.
And Abel ALSO brought [an offering] from the firstlings of his flock, that is, from their fat portions. And Jehovah had reagrd for Abel and for his offering.
But for Cain and for his offering He had no regard. And Cain became very angry, and his countenance fell" (Gen.4:3-5)
Cain, the first to offer, probably thought that what Abel was doing was not necessary. He probably thought "Nothing I know suggests that the death of a lamb is necessary for me to come to God in worship."
Cain really was the inventor of the first religion of man. What Abel did I would not call a religion. I would call it reality.
But when I see this kind of statement:
None of that suggests that His death was necessary for salvation - only that it was foreknown.
I see a somewhat modified version of Cain's theology. "The crucifixion of Christ was not really necessary for salvation. It was only foreknown."
Actually, this is a like the original call to doubt that man would die for partaking of the forbidden fruit of the knowledge of good and evil - "And the serpent said to the woman, You will not surely die! For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, ... etc" (Gen. 3:5)
The serpent was the initiator of "another way" besides God's way. And the same source enticed Cain to take "another way" besides the way of offering the slain lamb. And I fear that the same serpent injects the idea into man that "the death of Christ is not necessary for salvation. At best it was merely foreknown."
This is not meant to be offensive. It is meant to expose the subtleness inherent in the contradiction of what the New Testament teaches. It says that the death of Christ is necessary. The suggestion of disbelief is that it was only foreknown and not really necessary.
Compare the subtleness of the two concepts:
1.) When the serpent said that God knew that man's eyes would be opened, that part was indeed true. Still, man was to die for eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
2.) When someone suggests that it was only foreknown that Christ would die and not made necessary that He die, even if the first part is true, it is not true that His death is not necessary.
In the first case a true statement is used to convey an error.
In the second case an at least arguable statement is also used to convey an error.
In the first case the deceived person is in danger of taking in the thought that he will not die because God knows that something will happen. In the second case the deceived person is in danger of accepting the thought that Christ's death for her sins is not necessary. Afterall, it was only "foreknown" that He would die from the foundation of the world.
Can you see the subtlety?
Whether Christ's death on the cross and resurrection were only foreknown or foreordained the fact is that His act is necessary for salvation.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 05:47 AM

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 153 of 227 (305642)
04-21-2006 9:18 AM


The Conclusion of Predestined Death Argument
Ringo writes:
None of that suggests that His death was necessary for salvation - only that it was foreknown.
However the Apostle Peter's first gospel message states:
This man [Christ], delivered up by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God you, through the hand of lawless men, nailed to a cross and killed; Whom God raised up, having loosed the pangs of death ..." (Acts 2:23,24a)
Christ's death on the cross at the hands of murders, and His resurrection were not only foreknown but according to the determined counsel of God.
This counsel of God was "PREDESTINED" by God to occur:
For truly in this city [Jerusalem] there were gathered together against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, TO DO WHAT YOUR HAND AND YOUR COUNSEL PREDESTINED TO TAKE PLACE" (Acts 4:27,28)
End of debate over whether Christ's blood shedding death was predestined and foreknown or just foreknown.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 09:20 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 09:25 AM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 09:26 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by jar, posted 04-21-2006 9:29 AM jaywill has not replied
 Message 155 by AdminPD, posted 04-21-2006 9:40 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 154 of 227 (305643)
04-21-2006 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by jaywill
04-21-2006 9:18 AM


Quotemining again.
Let's look at that part of Acts.
Acts 2:22-24
22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.
Little different than what you posted. When you include verse 22 you can see that the emphasis is on Jesus life, not his death. In addition, it says that Jesus was handed over to you with foreknowledge, that GOD sent Jesus as a message to all, and that the foreknowledge part is not related to sending Jesus.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by jaywill, posted 04-21-2006 9:18 AM jaywill has not replied

  
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 155 of 227 (305645)
04-21-2006 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by jaywill
04-21-2006 9:18 AM


Wandering
quote:
End of debate over whether Christ's blood shedding death was predestined and foreknown or just foreknown.
I agree jaywill.
The discussion seems to be wandering away from Cain's sacrifice.
Please pull it back in people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by jaywill, posted 04-21-2006 9:18 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 156 of 227 (305649)
04-21-2006 9:51 AM


Quote mining
Jar, if you don't care for throws to first base in a ball game a good thing to do is to stay clear of Yankee Stadium.
And if you don't like Bible quote mining, maybe its kind of silly for you to hang around a "Bible Study".
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 09:51 AM

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 157 of 227 (305652)
04-21-2006 9:57 AM


Ringo,
Elaborate that bit you wrote about the priests and Leviticus and eating portions of the sacrifices.
Let's tie that into the Cain and Abel discussion. Elaborate on what your point in that was.

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by ringo, posted 04-21-2006 12:06 PM jaywill has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 158 of 227 (305674)
04-21-2006 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by jaywill
04-21-2006 4:33 AM


jaywill writes:
You said "But WHY?" And I said that that question was probably not possible for me to answer. Whatever answer I could conceivable offer, you will only resort to repeating the question "But WHY?" You can "But WHY? But WHY? But WHY?" us forever.
"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.
I think that at the heart of it is a question about God's authority.
No. It's a question about God's ability to communicate.
I think that really your question is concerning the why of the authority of God to establish His procedure.
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.
Perhaps your real underlining question is "WHY is salvation according to God's standard of righteousness and not mine?"
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.
Why would I sell my house in order to forgive a loan owed to me?
This is also a question about the Trinity. Inherent in the question of why the Son has to die for our sins is the question of how is the Son both God and man.
And you still don't have an answer.
One requirement of a scriptural interpretation is that it shouldn't be idiotic.
You may call the redemption of Jesus "idiotic" if it makes you feel good.
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.
I will most gladly except the label of IDIOT or FOOL for believing in the death and resurrection of Christ for my eternal salvation.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by jaywill, posted 04-21-2006 4:33 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by jaywill, posted 04-21-2006 1:27 PM ringo has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 159 of 227 (305676)
04-21-2006 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by jaywill
04-21-2006 9:57 AM


jaywill writes:
Elaborate that bit you wrote about the priests and Leviticus and eating portions of the sacrifices.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by jaywill, posted 04-21-2006 9:57 AM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 160 of 227 (305687)
04-21-2006 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by ringo
04-21-2006 11:48 AM


"But WHY?" is the crux of the matter. If you can't answer that, then all of your misinterpretations are worthless.
No it isn't really. The crux of the matter is whether we believe God or not.
" ... these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name." (John 20:31)
This is why God is much more broad then you Ringo. You are much more exclusive and narrow. You would not grant the divine life to anyone who believes but cannot explain.
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.
No the Bible does more than give us a communication from God. The Bible communicates God Himself. If one goes away from the Bible and has not touched God Himself within, the purpose of God giving the Bible has not been reached no matter how much you understand of think you can explain.
The Bible is not intended to only communicate things about God for objective knowledge regardless of how clearly understood. The Bible is given to convey God's Spirit into the reader.
Of course to understand is desireable. And I only claimed that I could not fully explain something. But life grows. Life matures. Perhaps the day will come when I have matured more in this divine life that I will be able to explain some more things.
I cannot explain gravity. Oh, I can recite that gravity is the effect of the curvature of space around mass, in Einstienian fashion. But I really can't explain how space curved around mass causes the effect we see as gravity.
In my daily practical life I do benefit from the belief that I must be careful of the law of gravity.
I also know that I have sinned against the God of this universe. I also believe that if I believe in Christ God looks upon me as if I had never sinned at all. My sins and my lawlessness He will by no means remember any more. In His eyes, because I have believed in His Son, the problem of my record of sins has been totally dealt with.
You ask "But WHY?" I think it is a good question. And I am exploring some things on it right now for my own sake. But I am glad that I didn't wait until I was able to explain it, and that to a argumentative opposer of the gospel such as yourself, in order to have my sins forgiven.
So I think the crux of the issue is that we are commanded by God to believe the good news. If you make the ability to explain the most crucial thing, I think you constrict and make more narrow the door of salvation. In an attempt to replace God's way with your own devices you make the way of salvation more exclusive and more narrow, not less so.
Since you can't answer WHY, you clearly don't understand what the Bible is trying to say to you
I would not say that in every instance in all matters I understand the Bible. The Apostle said that the peace of God surpasses every man's understanding: "And the peace of God, which surpasses every [man's] understanding, will guard your hearts and your thoughts in Christ Jesus" (Phil. 4:7)
I do understand the unspeakable peace in my heart that occurs when I pray God's promise back to Him:
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness ... And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for those of the whole world" (See 1 John 1:9,2:2)
I notice that this verse does not say that He is faithful and merciful. Nor does it say that He is faithful and kind. Nor does it say that He is faithful and understanding. Now God is merciful, kind, and understanding. But this verse says that God is faithful and RIGHTEOUS to forgive us of our sins.
In truth of the gospel, because we believe in Christ, it is the "righteous" thing to do for God to forgive us. Even if He doesn't like us He is righteous to forgive us. It is a matter of what is righteous for God to do if we have believed in the crucified and resurrected Son of God.
You may say, "But you cannot explain this. And therefore you don't understand this!"
Somewhat, I agree that it is deeper than I am able at this time to fully explain. But I derive the everlasting peace of BELIEVING the message of the gospel and confessing Jesus as my Lord. I have peace towards God. THAT I do understand.
No. It's a question about God's ability to communicate.
If we could somehow allow your thoughts during the day to be displayed as a movie on this screen what would the world see? I think that we would see that your mind is damaged and to a certain degree corrupted.
Our minds are damaged by sin. Our minds have been effected negatively by the fall of man into sin. It is therefore no wonder that certain aspects of the will of God are difficult for us to understand.
God communicates marvelously well with the sin damaged and sin corrupted darkened mind of the sinners of this world. And He calls us firstly to believe, even though we cannot explain. Understanding deepens as His salvation renews and heals our sin damaged minds.
No. My question is concerning the why of your "procedure".
I have none. This is why I "quote mine" to the Bible. But you are welcomed to point out what I concocted which is not taught in the Bible.
Please quote me where I introduced my creation and did not indentify where I derive such a thought from God's procedure as recorded in the teaching of the New Testament. I expect you to point out my "original" ideas on a procedure of salvation.
I expect you to back up your false accusation with concret examples in quote. And if I identify from where in Scripture I derive that such in such is the procedure taught in the Bible, I expect you to retract your accusation.
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.
On what bases then did the apostle John witness that some whose names were not recorded in the Book of Life were cast into eternal perdition?
" ... and they were judged, each of them, according to their works. And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:13b-15)
On what basis were those forgiven by God not found written in the book of life? And on what basis were those forgiven by God cast into the second death?
And if all were forgiven on what basis does Jesus tell the opposing religionists that they will die in their sin?
"He said therefore again to them, I am going away, and you will seek Me and will die in your sin. Where I am going, you cannot come" (John 8:21).
Why will some die in thier sin? And if there is no way of salvation then why did Jesus say that those who do not come through Him as the door are as theives not taking the appropiate entrance?
"I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he shall be saved and shall go in and go out and shall find pasture." (John 10:9)
Being saved in this passage is conditioned upon entering through the proper door which is Christ Himself.
"Truly, truly, I say to you, He who does not enter through the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up from somewhere else, he is a thief and a robber." (John 10:1)
If anyone enters through Christ, the appropriate "door" he shall be saved. To climb up another way is the illegal way of a thief or a robber. How then is there no procedure? If there is no procedure then Christ would not have said that He is the appropriate door, would He have? If there were no proper way of salvation then to climb up another way or any way would not be counted as the way of illegality.
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.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 01:29 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 01:31 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 01:32 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 01:35 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 01:37 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by ringo, posted 04-21-2006 11:48 AM ringo has not replied

  
Rainman2
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 227 (305710)
04-21-2006 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by ringo
04-18-2006 10:56 PM


Re: Jesus' life - not His death
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow I never noticed that before, see even Peter quotes Isaiah 53 talking about Christ.
anyway...
I guess the verse that most clearly shows that Jesus's death was what set us free from the law (which condemns every person) is the one jaywill said. Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; In some of these verses it seems really obvious what they are saying. There is no reason to think they are all parables and figures of speech.
God is a perfectly righteous judge, that is why he wouldn't just come down to an evil world and tell everyone they are forgiven.A person has a choice whether or not they want to do something wrong or not.So because there had to be a punishment God was willing to take it on himself, which showed that he loved us. And his life and death did show us that he could identify with our suffering, no argument there.
hebrews2:17-18 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.
But when you say that he came to tell us we were forgiven do you mean that everyone is saved?
This message has been edited by Rainman2, 04-21-2006 03:24 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by ringo, posted 04-18-2006 10:56 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by ringo, posted 04-21-2006 5:02 PM Rainman2 has not replied
 Message 176 by jaywill, posted 04-23-2006 11:26 AM Rainman2 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 162 of 227 (305742)
04-21-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Rainman2
04-21-2006 3:20 PM


Cain's sacrifice - not Jesus'
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Rainman2, posted 04-21-2006 3:20 PM Rainman2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by jaywill, posted 04-21-2006 6:27 PM ringo has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 163 of 227 (305759)
04-21-2006 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by ringo
04-21-2006 5:02 PM


Re: Cain's sacrifice - not Jesus'
There is no indication of any sacrifices before Abel's and Cain's.
Irrelevant. So what?
There is no indication that they were told how to sacrifice.
The weight of evidence, if considered fairly, through the rest of the Scriptures, does give us some plausible insight into it.
Of course for one who streneously is out to deny any atoning sacrifice in all of Scripture, the evidence is to be swept under the rug and denied. And that behind a showy pretense of liturary objectivity.
There is no clear indication that Abel killed his sacrifice.
There is also no "clear indication" that Cain chopped down any plants.
Let's just take it as it says it: God chose Abel's sacrifice. We don't know why.
Let's just say "By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain ... " (Hebrews 11:4a)
All of the assumptions and speculations about atonement are irrelevant. A sacrifice is giving something up. It doesn't matter what.
Apparently it did matter. Abel's offering was regarded and Cain's was not.
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 06:28 PM
This message has been edited by jaywill, 04-21-2006 06:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by ringo, posted 04-21-2006 5:02 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by ringo, posted 04-21-2006 7:09 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 164 of 227 (305762)
04-21-2006 6:40 PM


Leviticus 17:11
All of the assumptions and speculations about atonement are irrelevant. A sacrifice is giving something up. It doesn't matter what.
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood ... and I have given it to you to make expiation for your souls on the altar, for it is the blood, by reason of the life, that makes expiation" (Levitcus 17:11)
The assumption and speculation that this was God's thought and expressed desire to Adam and Eve is not a wild one. It is very likely that this is why Abel's fat of slain lambs was regarded by God and Cain's bloodless vegetation was not.
The thought should not be easily dismissed as Ringo would like to do and leave us all in the darkest ignorance.

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by ringo, posted 04-21-2006 7:22 PM jaywill has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 165 of 227 (305766)
04-21-2006 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by jaywill
04-21-2006 6:27 PM


Re: Cain's sacrifice - not Jesus'
jaywill writes:
There is no indication of any sacrifices before Abel's and Cain's.
Irrelevant. So what?
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?
There is no indication that they were told how to sacrifice.
The weight of evidence, if considered fairly, through the rest of the Scriptures, does give us some plausible insight into it.
But you haven't shown us any evidence, from anywhere, that Cain and Abel were told how to sacrifice.
Of course for one who streneously is out to deny any atoning sacrifice in all of Scripture....
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.)
There is no clear indication that Abel killed his sacrifice.
There is also no "clear indication" that Cain chopped down any plants.
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.
Let's just say "By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain ... " (Hebrews 11:4a)
And we don't know why it was more excellent to God.
All of the assumptions and speculations about atonement are irrelevant. A sacrifice is giving something up. It doesn't matter what.
Apparently it did matter. Abel's offering was regarded and Cain's was not.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by jaywill, posted 04-21-2006 6:27 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024