The Jewish paradigm is quite different as it never was assumed we could be perfect and, therefore, there are provisions supplied by Torah and Tanakh dealing with God's willingness to forgive us even without the Temple.
Yes the Jews used animals as a sacrifice for sin. They were told to by God. This is going to get a little complex so hang on.
In the garden when Adam and Eve sinned the first thing God did to start the process of fixing this was slaughter two animals and place the skins on them. All covenants, and all profound dispensations, and changes come sealed in blood. God had decided that blood was to be what washed away sin. Our aversion to blood has nothing to do with the way God sees things and I will soon why. God used blood even though we think it grotesque for a good reason. I will just give a list of things involved here with blood atonement in somewhat Chronological order.
1. God saved man though bold in the Garden (not soul salvation but physical salvation).
2. God's justice meant their immediate destruction but sealed them in blood because blood is the means by which God would save mankind. I know this sounds a little morbid so far but it will eventually pan out a salvation model so sophisticated no man could have ever thought it up.
3. That use of blood in the Garden was no accident, next it was to be the blood of PERFECT Lambs etc... offered by the high priest that was to push sin forward, not forgive it. That was the system the Hebrews lived under or part of it.
4. The other part was their faith in a future Messiah who would actually forgive all the sins that the blood of animals pushed forward year to year. They like Christians were saved by faith in the messiah. For them it was a future messiah, for us it was a past messiah. The problem is that they killed the messiah and claimed he was not him after all. That is the only place we split.
5. Also note that is was the blood of perfect lambs put on door posts that separated those that would be killed from those that would not be in Egypt. It is the blood and only the blood (not ethnicity, not sinless-ness, not good works) that separate those whom God spares from those that are not.
6. Also notice the first covenant (OT) was born in blood when Abraham sacrificed the ram (that God had provided: note that) instead of his son. That was intended to say two things. A. Do not practice child sacrifice as most others did and B. That God and God alone would provide the sacrifice.
7. This type of thing is called a type and shadow. OT events are types of later real events. They are shadows of later real provisions.
8. This theme continues in the NT is that the new covenant was establish by blood. Not just any blood but Christ's blood. The take this in remembrance of me verses are about Christ's blood being the true blood of covenants.
9. It was not blood God rally cared about from animals or Christ. The blood was only the chosen method of provision. Probably chosen because by being crucified (the actual reason we may be saved) came with bloodshed. Just like the lambs and Rams Christ was perfect.
10. So salvation's details were always known but were maintained and brought for with countless men over several centuries not even living in similar cultures to a poetic and exhaustive conclusion with Christ. Who unlike the high priests of Israel had to offer the blood of animals year by year, Christ offered his true blood once and for all.
This is the most perfect plan of redemption known and what Christ taught. Other (non-Biblical prophets) taught other methods but when God raised Jesus from the dead he put his stamp of approval on what Jesus taught. I could have written a chapter for every point I made and still not have exhaustive the intricacies and interconnection of the development of God salvation plan as it came into place over time to it's climax with the greatest being to ever walk the Earth and the one more associated with perfection and love than any other. Just on its face claims like we must all be good, just, sinless, agree to intellectual propositions, or say incantations and perform ceremonies just seem all to stupidly human. However it is much worse in that they are impossible. Merit based salvation is not possible.
Thanks, but as I say above, I don't agree with those theological constructs.
I am not sure to which ones you are referring. Are you saying your misunderstanding of Jewish salvation models are nor agreeable to you?
Why operate out of an either/or paradigm? Might it not be possible that different religions may contain some truths? And does any one religion really contain all the truths?
It is certainly possible but it is highly inconsistent with benevolence. Could you trust a God that told the Jews to kill Christ, told the apostles he was the messiah, told Islam he was a prophet but never died on a cross nor forgave anyone, and told Hindus he was simply a good teacher. That God is insane at best and downright evil at worst. Most theological textual claims mutually exclusive and therefore can't more than one of them be right, not to mention you have no way to know which nor which parts of which. Truth is exclusive, so should God's word be. There are an almost infinite number of wrong answers for every right one.
Because I'm an anthropologist now retired, I have studied the world's major religions and a great many smaller ones, and I simply find no room for the "my way or the highway" type of approach.
On what basis is there no room for that? Many of the texts themselves say they are exclusive.
Makes not one iota of sense to me.
It makes perfect sense to me and 2 billion other Christians. It makes perfect sense to another 1.6 billion Muslim that Muhammad gave the only correct path. In fact I would say 2/3 of the Earth population holds exclusive views. If you want I will give you links to the greatest philosophers still alive where you can see the philosophical reasons suggesting exclusivity and the lack of reason suggesting plurality. If you want plurality try Hinduism. They have between one and 330 million God's. I have never met two Hindus who had the same number.
I consider the above to be both arrogant and highly judgmental. I have not attacked your religion but somehow you feel free to attack others. There are a great many Christians who have found some wisdom in the eastern religions, and vise-versa.
What I said was neither. I have no idea what your religion is. Using invalid methodology invariably results in errors in results. It is like a person who is a politically Liberal whether the candidate is right or wrong. When there is a wrong candidate (and most are on the left) that person preference has forced him to defend the indefensible. Your aversion to exclusivity has more than likely forced you to exclude the truth (truth is almost always exclusive) and you left defending the indefensible.
I didn't know there was some contest here. The idea that the "Bible wins again" is just so short sighted.
There is a contest of idea here. That is what a debate is. I said that on both my argument and using your standards you get the Bible as the mostly likely answer. You may not prefer that but it is logically derived from my arguments and your universalism standard.
FYI, I taught Christian theology to adults for 14 years and comparative religions for an additional two years, so I know exactly where you're coming from and why. So far, there is not one single item that you've mentioned that I haven't run across many times before.
What qualified you to teach a subject that begins with an experience you did not have? A physicist could explain 2 dimensional elastic collisions, or I as a person with a math degree could explain trajectories of a 1 ounce 30MM Bofors slug but no one could know what getting hit by Tyson or shot from a A10 would feel like nor even if they existed. However the most ignorant man who ever lived if hit be either would know very very well they exist. My argument rests in application, experience, and provision not in academic description.
Because I am not anti-Christian, so if your believe helps you be a better person, I'm all for that being an approach that helps you. OTOH, if one uses their religious beliefs to bash others, then I have a rather serious problem with that. who said not to judge others, nor with Paul who said he was not even willing to judge himself.
I did not say it made me a better person. If you assumed a person became better by being a Christian is that not enough reason alone to be one. I do not bash believes I bash what I perceive as untruths or irrational claims. I have no idea what religion you are so I do not know what your defending. I am not prevented but demanded to judge theological claims. Even that judgment verse is misunderstood apparently by your application. Every single character in the Bible judged. There are too many subjects here so I will not get into that verse but it is widely misunderstood.
Since it is quite clear that we are never going to agree on even the most basic items, and since it appears you have no intention of trying to be even slightly objective, I prefer to call an end to my part of this discussion.
Please put bail outs up front to save my effort in the future. Selah,
I gave you a very very easy way to show your position correct. Yet you did not even attempt to construct even a bad hypothetical merit based salvation model as proof one could ever be constructed.
