Why Is Jesus As A Sacrifice OK?

[metis]

how about we talk about all the animals that have been sacrificed to this egomanical despot?? those poor lambs

Reminds me of the Dalai Lama's statement that if you sacrifice a cow, all you have is a dead cow.

However, in Judaism, the cow was eaten after sacrifice, with much of it going to feed the poor.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

let's be honest YHVH would be the Trump of the gods

I'm 110% certain that would be Zeus.

 

[Rough Beast Sloucher]

I'm 110% certain that would be Zeus.

Kronos ate his own children.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Kronos ate his own children.

Zeus slept with anything with a pulse.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Kronos ate his own children.

And Zeus got him to puke them all back up.

Zeus 1, Kronos 0.

 

[74x12]

What makes it a mistake on his part is blaming mankind for erring when he both knew they would err and that it was unavoidable. Considering the nature of Adam and Eve at the time, they were as putty in the hands of higher powers; they had no concept of right or wrong, no knowledge of what sin or disobedience was, and cannot justly be blamed for their actions - not even by an allegedly "all-powerful" being.

Assuming you are correct and that we properly understand the concept of their "innocence" and we understand what exactly the fruit of knowledge is. Yet, no one even said it was about right and wrong at that point. God only needed to tell them that eating the fruit would result in death. This is called the concept of fair warning.

No one could blame the owner of a house if let's say a kid threw his ball in their yard. Even though he had a valid reason for going in their yard that was not criminal; yet he saw the sign "beware of the dog" and chose to go in anyway. If he gets bitten that's his fault. That's fair warning.

We see in Genesis 4:7 that God compares sin to a beast crouching (as if to pounce) at the door.

God acknowledges their ignorance because we see that although Adam and Eve were created as beings in the image of God. Meaning they had a spirit and God is a Spirit. (John 4:24) Unlike the rest of the animals; God breathed on Adam the "breath of Life" and he became a living soul. Yet, God did not give them the eternal death that satan for example would be condemned unto. Instead God said "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return." This means physical death. This was done in the mercy of God; because although they must die; yet it would be a temporary death and God would receive them again in the resurrection. As Job said "And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:" (Job 19:26)

So on one hand; God must stick to His word that they would die. On the other hand God planned even then to receive them again into eternal life.

Then there's also several mentions in the bible of your god regretting (an emotion of acknowledging a mistake made) his creations, especially in Genesis when he regrets it so much that he wipes the slate (almost) clean. Then a couple instances in Exodus, and even Jesus makes mention of despair and doubt.

You misunderstand how the word repentance is being used though. God is not regretting He made man in the first place. He's at that point in time repented that they go on existing. This is the same any time you see God "repent". It's just God changing directions so to speak. Usually having to do with people either turning towards or away from good. So, when a good person becomes bad; God "repents" of the good things He was going to do for them. (Jeremiah 18:10) and when a bad person turns good and is sorry for his past; then God will often repent of the bad things He had spoken against them.

In the case of the flood of Noah. The whole world had turned their back on the good. God therefore "repented" that man should go on living on the earth. Again we see the principle of fair warning though as God gave them 120 years to turn back from their evil ways before He would send the flood. (Gen. 6:3) During this time the Spirit of God would even strive with men to get them to repent.

The flood of Noah was necessary because of the corruption of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6. They were fallen angels who were corrupting the DNA of humans through sex. These fallen angels were (according to the book of Enoch) teaching forbidden knowledge to their wives.

Their children called the nephilim were giants. Giants really existed and even Norse legends talk about Thor fighting them. I believe that it is a good guess that Odin and Thor were real people. Many Germanic tribes and especially kings etc. traced their lineage back to Odin and Thor. So, I believe the religion started out as ancestor worship.

Anyway, back to my point. Giants are in stories all over the world and they really existed. They were "magical". This was due to their being descendant from angels. Of course they had supernatural powers. Humans who managed to successfully fight these giants became famous in ancient times(such as David) and no doubt revered by their ancestors. I think Thor is a possible example of this.

No, I don't think so. Well before the Serpent and that fruit, "And he saw that it was good."

Yes it was good. Meaning absent from evil. However, goodness in it's perfection had not come. This only comes through pain. God put this symbolically in child birth. " Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;" Yet, the good that comes from it is worth the trouble because God says to the serpent(satan) that the seed of the woman would bruise the serpent's head. (Gen. 3:15) The world that now is groans and travails as a woman with child waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God. (Romans 8:18-22) Jesus is the firstborn, but there will be many children of God through Jesus. Besides, as the 6 days are foreshadow of the coming ages of the world; God's creation is on going as He continues (in each age) to bring forth good things.

I could start pulling verses, time-consuming though it is, but yes he did. Several mentions of him forcing the will of the Pharaoh (messing with his head,) and even a mention of how he turned the Egyptian people's favor to that of Moses.

But how does God do it? The point is God is a King on His throne. As any King He delegates jobs to subordinates. The holy Spirit of God only influences for good. In the case of the Egyptian people favoring Moses; that probably was God directly. God does give good thoughts to people and probably His angels also. But in the case of the judgment on Pharaoh I assume an evil spirit was allowed to come to Pharaoh and his advisers.

Where? A chapter and verse would be helpful. I am also curious as to why that's evil, but drowning the entire world, murdering every single firstborn - human and beast - of Egypt, etc etc is not. Just because it's a god doing it doesn't make it just or good.

God gives life and can take life. Everyone dies and it's just a matter of timing. If a man a Pharaoh unjustly condemns people to death then he's playing as if he is God. He's only a man. God on the other hand takes lives. But, they're not necessarily dead to God because all live to God. (Luke 20:38) There is physical death and spiritual death. The latter is the one to be avoided.

I already explained why the flood was necessary and how the people before the flood and even in Egypt received fair warning. The Egyptians saw all the plagues God did and had fair warning. The plague on the firstborn was the last plague. These plagues came on Egypt because it was time for Egypt to pay for what they had done for hundreds of years to the Hebrews. The Egyptians drowned the Hebrew babes and now their firstborn died. This was why God sent "evil angels" (Psalm 78:49) among the Egyptians to turn their hearts away from repentance.

There is zero mention of how hard the Hebrews worked or what their "quota" was - and worse for your case, there's absolutely no historical or archeological record - so this is just pure extrapolation.

Well, the Bible is what we have to go on for the whole story. It does say how hard they worked if you read between the lines. We assume they worked as hard as they could because they didn't want to be beaten. Yet it wasn't enough. Here is what it says:

"So the people were scattered abroad throughout all the land of Egypt to gather stubble instead of straw. And the taskmasters hasted them, saying, Fulfil your works, your daily tasks, as when there was straw. And the officers of the children of Israel, which Pharaoh's taskmasters had set over them, were beaten, and demanded, Wherefore have ye not fulfilled your task in making brick both yesterday and to day, as heretofore? Then the officers of the children of Israel came and cried unto Pharaoh, saying, Wherefore dealest thou thus with thy servants? There is no straw given unto thy servants, and they say to us, Make brick: and, behold, thy servants are beaten; but the fault is in thine own people." (Exodus 5:12-16)​

The modern idea - lacking as it is - of a sacrifice is giving up soda and foul language for a week, before diving right back in after yearly holiday obligations.

Right, but my point is not all sacrifices from a Biblical perspective are about how much you loss. For example when Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac; God provided a ram caught in the bush. Abraham offered this ram instead and it was accepted. Abraham did not lose Isaac; he just found a ram and sacrificed it. (Gen. 22:13)

"Just being tortured to death" is hardly a sacrifice, either, when nothing was lost. Nothing was given up by Jesus. Even in sacrifices of atonement, something was lost or given up.

Well, Jesus did give every ounce of His blood. It also says He bore our griefs and carried our sorrows. (Isaiah 53) The mental strain was such that Jesus sweated large drops of blood. (Luke 22:44) No doubt this had to do with Him "becoming sin for us who knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21)

Jesus didn't come just to die but to establish the resurrection. Without the resurrection the death of Jesus was meaningless. Without the resurrection no one could be saved.

Not so clearly. Tell me, what would you think "battle-sweat" is? What about the phrase "battle-fish in the hawk's perch"?

I would have to study the kind of turns of speech they were using at the time to know those things for sure. Battle sweat would probably be the sweat you sweat when you're fighting. I would assume a battle-fish was maybe a type of fish known for putting up a fight. On the other hand it may have to do with the practice of reading omens. I don't know; those are just guesses. But, a ritual offering is a ritual offering.

In much the same way that a student devoting time to studying "offers" themselves to themselves. Hardly what one would call a sacrifice.

This wasn't just about studying. If he was intentionally stabbed with a spear and "hung" then I think it was something more than just studying. The whole thing is ritualistic and therefore to be considered a ritual offering which has always been a sacrifice. He apparently had to experience pain etc. to learn the runes. Therefore that is a sacrifice. Which brings us back to Jesus.

And the documentation by the Egyptians for all this is ... where?

Do you believe Germans ate children just because WW2 America said they did?

The Egyptians weren't in the habit of recording defeats and things of that nature. If they admitted their god-man Pharaoh was drowned in the sea by the God of the Hebrews that wouldn't have gone over very well.

 

[InChrist]

I would feel what many humans would feel. However, I can't tell God whom to admit into heaven. Grace, and all that.


Honey, I grew up in an abusive household. I was bullied at home and at school. My parents continue to this day to be narcissistic sociopaths. If anything, I deserve my outlook.


Your God apparently can't "save". Mine can. I don't have to LIKE it, but God's supposed to be able to save people, IIRC.

I am very sorry to hear that you grew up in an abusive situation.

So when you say your God can "save", are you saying that God should let or even force, for example, narcissistic sociopaths into heaven? Should He allow them to continue abusing and bullying others for eternity? Or do you believe God can or will force people to be loving instead of cruel?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Assuming you are correct and that we properly understand the concept of their "innocence" and we understand what exactly the fruit of knowledge is.

The myth is pretty clear-cut about it all.

Before eating of the fruit, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good or evil. They were literally as newborns, and thus had no concept of obedience or disobedience, or repercussions of doing so. Reading the story, you know that it's wrong, but as the story goes we're living post-fruit. We know right from wrong. They did not, until they ate the fruit.

As for Yahweh telling them not to eat the fruit... How well does a newborn listen when you tell it not to do something? A&E had no sense of anything; including Yahweh's authority. He said they would die, the snake said they wouldn't. Having no knowledge of good or evil or anything, how were they to know? "God said so"--but to someone with no knowledge, what does that mean? If you tell an infant that the President said it's a crime to spit on the floor, it'd have the same effect and weight.

And as for them dying, apparently that wasn't in the plan either. Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

You misunderstand how the word repentance is being used though.

Genesis 6:6 "The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled."

Yes it was good. Meaning absent from evil.

And with evil yet-to-be-created, how was it to be known that it was good? There was nothing negative to compare creation to so that it could be known as "not evil"; it was all there was, and - as the myth goes - it was good.

So either the myth has some inconsistencies, or good was created before evil, already in being before evil was allowed.

But in the case of the judgment on Pharaoh I assume an evil spirit was allowed to come to Pharaoh and his advisers.

Exodus 7:1-4. "Then the lord said to Moses, 'See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites.'"

To quote myself from elsewhere:

[A]ccording to the accounts the first plague (boils) was inflicted as nothing but what appeared to be a simple spell at Exodus 9:8-11. Your god hardened Ramses' heart at Exodus 9:12. Then the other plagues were inflicted.

Now, here's where it gets interesting and a bit sadistic.

At Exodus 9:27, after the second plague of hail, Ramses says "This time I have sinned, the lord is in the right, and I and my people are in the wrong. Pray to the lord, for we have had enough thunder and hail. I will let you go; you don’t have to stay any longer." So they're free to go, right? Moses replies by saying, "When I have gone out of the city, I will spread out my hands in prayer to the lord. The thunder will stop and there will be no more hail, so you may know that the earth is the lord’s. But I know that you and your officials still do not fear the lord god." Basically, Moses said "Thanks for letting us go, but screw you."

Then, after the thunder and hail is lifted, Pharaoh's heart is yet again hardened. Yahweh again admits to this act at Exodus 10:1 by saying "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the lord." The Hebrews were free to go, Pharaoh was going to let them go after just the second plague, but this wasn't enough for Yahweh. He had to eliminate Pharaoh's free will so that the Hebrews would be yet again punished, all so that the Egyptians can be "dealt with."

Moses then goes to Pharaoh and says "This is what the lord, the god of the Hebrews, says: 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let my people go, so that they may worship me. If you refuse to let them go, I will bring locusts into your country tomorrow. They will cover the face of the ground so that it cannot be seen. They will devour what little you have left after the hail, including every tree that is growing in your fields. They will fill your houses and those of all your officials and all the Egyptians—something neither your parents nor your ancestors have ever seen from the day they settled in this land till now.'" (Exodus 10:3-6) But wait; didn't Pharaoh say that the Hebrews were free to go back at Exodus 9:27? Didn't he admit that the Hebrew's god was right - humbling himself and asking Moses to pray to his god for it to stop? What more does Yahweh want?

Apparently, it won't end until Pharaoh is killed, as the Hebrews were technically free after the second plague. Your god again hardens Pharaoh's heart at Exodus 10:20, Exodus 10:27, and Exodus 11:10, all of which the Hebrews are not permitted to leave. So really, it was Yahweh keeping the Hebrews in captivity, as Pharaoh was more than willing to let them go before Yahweh hardened his heart.

The Egyptians drowned the Hebrew babes and now their firstborn died.

A claim for which you still have provided nothing. So it's not really a point, is it?

Well, the Bible is what we have to go on for the whole story.

No, the bible is the only source for that story. Which - to practicality - means it didn't happen. We have records for everything that the Egyptians did, and how they did it. Enslaving the Hebrews was not one of those things.

Right, but my point is not all sacrifices from a Biblical perspective are about how much you loss ... Abraham did not lose Isaac; he just found a ram and sacrificed it.

A life was still lost, and Abraham still took it. Why should the ram be seen as inconsequential or frivolous?

Well, Jesus did give every ounce of His blood.

And where does it say that he was bled dry? How did he rise again in the flesh, with no blood to sustain his body? (In before "god works in mysterious ways").

Ah, but bearing griefs and sorrows; now we're getting somewhere. Only, there's nothing that conclusively states that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus. That's Christian retroactive reading. There may be something to be said for taking on another's punishment as offering oneself up as a sacrifice of sorts, but there's nothing factually to say that's what Jesus did. He said some things, upset the local establishment, and was executed for it. Thems is the facts.

I would have to study the kind of turns of speech they were using at the time to know those things for sure. Battle sweat would probably be the sweat you sweat when you're fighting. I would assume a battle-fish was maybe a type of fish known for putting up a fight. On the other hand it may have to do with the practice of reading omens. I don't know; those are just guesses. But, a ritual offering is a ritual offering.

"Battle-sweat" is blood. The phrase "Battle-fish in the hawk's perch" simply means "swords in hand". See, the Norse were fond of kennings; word uses that do not mean what they read as. So perhaps Odin's hanging was a "sacrifice-like" offering, and perhaps it wasn't; it's not clear at all. If I tell you that I'm offering you my services, am I making a sacrifice?

In any case, you asked what I made of it. You've had what I make of it.

This wasn't just about studying.

Yes, it was. There are some things that can only be studied and known while walking the razor-thin line between life and death, and such is one of few ways to spiritually travel to the worlds and realms from where Odin gathered knowledge and wisdom of the runes.

Ritualistic does not make for sacrifice, necessarily, nor does sacrifice necessitate ritual. There was nothing ritual about Odin sacrificing his eye to Mímisbrunnr, yet it was a sacrifice.

He apparently had to experience pain etc. to learn the runes.

Pain is not mentioned. You've a habit of reading into things, I've noticed.

 

[Mikail Hakeem]

Why is it alright in the Christian religion for Jesus to be a human sacrifice when all throughout Tanach G-d dismays of such practices and does not command them?

It doesn't make any sense to me what so ever..

 

[74x12]

Reading the story, you know that it's wrong, but as the story goes we're living post-fruit. We know right from wrong. They did not, until they ate the fruit.

Yes you assume so and for now I'm going along with it because I don't know what else it could mean. However, I then proceeded to answer your point based off that assumption. So, I'm not sure why you're focusing on this.

As for Yahweh telling them not to eat the fruit... How well does a newborn listen when you tell it not to do something? A&E had no sense of anything; including Yahweh's authority. He said they would die, the snake said they wouldn't. Having no knowledge of good or evil or anything, how were they to know? "God said so"--but to someone with no knowledge, what does that mean? If you tell an infant that the President said it's a crime to spit on the floor, it'd have the same effect and weight.

First of all the comparison with a new born is not just. They were apparently fully developed, adult humans. As for their level of knowledge; it does not specify. What we assume is that they did not know good from evil. But there is nothing that would make us believe they had the cognitive level of an infant. Also, seeing that they may have walked and talked with God we have to attribute unto them some level of enlightenment.

BTW, nothing says that Adam was tricked by the serpent; only Eve was tricked. Adam ate it because Eve ate it; not because the serpent convinced him of anything.

And as for them dying, apparently that wasn't in the plan either. Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

I'm sorry I don't follow you here. Can you explain that?

Genesis 6:6 "The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled."

That's not Hebrew though. The Hebrew can mean regret according to context. However, there is no context in Gen. 6:6 that makes it necessarily mean regret. In fact the context is the opposite. It indicates that God is sorry because humans were only thinking evil thoughts continually. That doesn't indicate to me that He is sorry He made Adam to begin with. But, sorry about that specific generation. Also, in context the text was just discussing the Nephilim so we can assume this also had something to do with God's sorrow over humans. The "sons of God" were corrupting the human genome; which was nullifying God's original creation. This is why God found Noah a man "perfect in his generations". (this actually might indicate lineage rather than morality). This indicates to me that God is sorry because His original creation is not what He intended anymore.

So, I believe it means that God from that point on repented that He made humans on the earth. Obviously, you can read it how ever you want. No one is going to stop you. Or you can accept a reasonable explanation. That's totally up to you.

And with evil yet-to-be-created, how was it to be known that it was good? There was nothing negative to compare creation to so that it could be known as "not evil"; it was all there was, and - as the myth goes - it was good.

So either the myth has some inconsistencies, or good was created before evil, already in being before evil was allowed.

Yes it was good. I did not disagree. That doesn't mean that everything that is good existed yet. God wants all of the good to exist.

Besides you're conflating physical things with virtue. I'm talking about virtue being cultivated through the existence of evil conditions. You're talking about plants, rivers, whales or whatever. Yes those things are "good" but you're missing my whole point.

Also you're missing the deeper meanings of the scriptures. When God made "good" in every day this means how God would make goodness spring forth in each age of the world. The world is a garden. Virtue is the fruit. We are the branches.

Exodus 7:1-4. "Then the lord said to Moses, 'See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet. You are to say everything I command you, and your brother Aaron is to tell Pharaoh to let the Israelites go out of his country. But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt, he will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and with mighty acts of judgment I will bring out my divisions, my people the Israelites.'"

To quote myself from elsewhere:

[A]ccording to the accounts the first plague (boils) was inflicted as nothing but what appeared to be a simple spell at Exodus 9:8-11. Your god hardened Ramses' heart at Exodus 9:12. Then the other plagues were inflicted.

I agree God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Before now I've only argued as to how it was hardened. My contention is that it was hardened by God sending evil spirits which is what Psalm 78:49 seems to be talking about as an act of judgment on Pharaoh and Egypt. In Ex. 7:4 it says that it is indeed acts of judgment: "But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt, and bring forth mine armies, and my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great judgments."

Now, here's where it gets interesting and a bit sadistic.

At Exodus 9:27, after the second plague of hail, Ramses says "This time I have sinned, the lord is in the right, and I and my people are in the wrong. Pray to the lord, for we have had enough thunder and hail. I will let you go; you don’t have to stay any longer." So they're free to go, right? Moses replies by saying, "When I have gone out of the city, I will spread out my hands in prayer to the lord. The thunder will stop and there will be no more hail, so you may know that the earth is the lord’s. But I know that you and your officials still do not fear the lord god." Basically, Moses said "Thanks for letting us go, but screw you."

It's obvious that Pharaoh is just saying this to make the plague stop and the minute it's gone he'll change his mind about letting them go. That's what keeps happening throughout the whole story. Moses is not saying "screw you". He's letting Pharaoh know that he knows what Pharaoh is up to. So, even though Moses is going to pray so the plague stops. Yet, Moses knows Pharaoh is not going to stick to his word.

Then, after the thunder and hail is lifted, Pharaoh's heart is yet again hardened. Yahweh again admits to this act at Exodus 10:1 by saying "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the lord." The Hebrews were free to go, Pharaoh was going to let them go after just the second plague, but this wasn't enough for Yahweh. He had to eliminate Pharaoh's free will so that the Hebrews would be yet again punished, all so that the Egyptians can be "dealt with."

I don't really believe in actual free will to begin with. And as I've explained numerous times I believe this was an act of judgment on Egypt and Pharaoh. It was not supposed to be fair. As the old saying goes. "Whom the gods would destroy they first make mad." There is definitely some truth to it; except obviously Yah is God.

A claim for which you still have provided nothing. So it's not really a point, is it?

I assumed you would know that. Exodus 1:16.

No, the bible is the only source for that story. Which - to practicality - means it didn't happen. We have records for everything that the Egyptians did, and how they did it. Enslaving the Hebrews was not one of those things.

Be careful. The Bible has proven historically accurate time and time again. "Experts" doubted that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon(from the Bible) even existed until they found evidence in Babylon.

You do not have records of everything the Egyptians did. They would definitely record their victories and triumphs. Would they really be keen to record the fact they were trounced by a bunch of Hebrew slaves? Would they really be keen to record how all their gods were put to shame including Pharaoh? No ... But, we have evidence the Canaanites were indeed attacked by someone and that they sent to Egypt for help but that the Egyptians didn't help them. I wonder why ... Maybe because the Egyptians were too afraid after what happened at the Red Sea.

A life was still lost, and Abraham still took it. Why should the ram be seen as inconsequential or frivolous?

Abraham lost nothing. He could have sacrificed one of his own rams.

And where does it say that he was bled dry? How did he rise again in the flesh, with no blood to sustain his body? (In before "god works in mysterious ways").

Ah, but bearing griefs and sorrows; now we're getting somewhere. Only, there's nothing that conclusively states that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus. That's Christian retroactive reading. There may be something to be said for taking on another's punishment as offering oneself up as a sacrifice of sorts, but there's nothing factually to say that's what Jesus did. He said some things, upset the local establishment, and was executed for it. Thems is the facts.

Isaiah 53 fits Jesus so perfectly you would have to assume that Jesus always had it in mind and molded his life carefully to fulfill it and thus that He planned to die. By your understanding of Jesus; He's just a man who went a little to far and got killed for his mistake. That doesn't fit what Jesus said about Himself. He alluded to His own death more than once. (Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31, Luke 9:22 etc.)

So perhaps Odin's hanging was a "sacrifice-like" offering, and perhaps it wasn't; it's not clear at all.

The difference is you know what a battlefish in a hawk's perch means because it's explained from context or whatever. (I don't know. You know.) But when it comes to an offering. I think you have to read it as it is until you find some further text expounding it differently. As far as I'm concerned it's clear.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I'm not sure why you're focusing on this.

Because way back in Post #91, you claimed that I know that your god doesn't make mistakes. To which I replied that I know the opposite; he makes many mistakes, the Garden of Eden being among them.

First of all the comparison with a new born is not just. They were apparently fully developed, adult humans.

With the mentality and wits of newborns. Their "knowledge level" is laid out; they did not even know right from wrong. There's no assumption about it, as that's the whole point of the myth.

I'm sorry I don't follow you here. Can you explain that?

Quite what it says; there were two trees in Eden. A Tree of Life and a Tree of Knowledge. A&E were not only denied Eden, but also access to the Tree of Life, which would have granted them eternal life. In denying them this, they were condemned to mortality.

That's not Hebrew though...

Any way you slice it - regret, repentance, sorry for the situation, sorry for the generation - it is still your god acknowledging a mistake that he made.

Yes it was good. I did not disagree.

Good, glad we're on the same page. So your statement in Post #137 that the serpent and his evil was necessary so that good could be made was incorrect. After all, good is a virtue even when describing physical objects.

I agree God hardened Pharaoh's heart. Before now I've only argued as to how it was hardened. My contention is that it was hardened by God sending evil spirits which is what Psalm 78:49 seems to be talking about as an act of judgment on Pharaoh and Egypt.

"He unleashed against them his hot anger, his wrath, indignation and hostility- a band of destroying angels." ~Psalm 78:49. No mention of evil spirits.

Neither is it "obvious" that the Pharaoh was repenting "just to make the plagues stop". That's heavy assumption on your part.

I assumed you would know that. Exodus 1:16.

Thank you for providing something. So your god punishes entire nations with death for the actions of one man? And that's not evil... how?

Be careful. The Bible has proven historically accurate time and time again.

And it has proven historically inaccurate far more often. There is nothing to corroborate the Exodus story outside the myth in your book. Nothing.

Abraham lost nothing.

A life was still given, and Abraham took it. There's no clearer way to say that.

Isaiah 53 fits Jesus so perfectly

You think. But it doesn't really. Neither can the gospel accounts be taken as 100% accurate, as they were written several decades after the fact. Though it may be unthinkable for you, it's not that hard to author in some self-prophecy and ominous foreboding.

The difference is you know what a battlefish in a hawk's perch means because it's explained from context or whatever. (I don't know. You know.) But when it comes to an offering. I think you have to read it as it is until you find some further text expounding it differently. As far as I'm concerned it's clear.

And as I said before, you asked what I made of it. Don't ask for something if you're just going to ignore it.

That verse comes from the poem of the Hávamál, the same poem that says

"Over beer the bird | of forgetfulness broods,
And steals the minds of men;
With the heron's feathers | fettered I lay
And in Gunnloth's house was held"

If we trust your interpretation of riddle-laden figurative poetry, we'd be petrified of brain-snatching birds looming over our alcohol, and read Odin as being imprisoned by feathers.

It remains that Odin hanging upon Yggdrasil was not a sacrifice, but you're so intent on assigning it as such so you can sniff out hypocrisy in my statements that Jesus' hanging on the cross was not a sacrifice. Problem being that a) I don't believe Odin's actions on the World Tree were a sacrifice either, and b) you're ignoring the actual sacrifice that Odin made in his quests for knowledge and wisdom.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

So when you say your God can "save", are you saying that God should let or even force, for example, narcissistic sociopaths into heaven? Should He allow them to continue abusing and bullying others for eternity? Or do you believe God can or will force people to be loving instead of cruel?

I don't think you are understanding what "saved" means. It means you are cleansed. You no longer WANT to be evil. Remember this one author in the bible who complains to God that he can't prophesy because he has a filthy (&(**^*^*^ mouth? A bite of some hot coals and God was satisfied.

Or this:

I don't see a point to a Savior if he can't save anything. Just seems like a waste of time, to me.

They were apparently fully developed, adult humans.

Now all you need is evidence. The tasks Adam was given (Eve doesn't get a job, does she?) and how they act during the fruit scene make them sound like 7 years old. Naming animals (something God could've done when He, you know, MADE them) is not exactly rocket science.

Yet, Moses knows Pharaoh is not going to stick to his word.

But the only reason he doesn't stick to his word is that God hardens his heart. The entire plot could've been avoided had God just butted out.

I don't really believe in actual free will to begin with.

Then why continue to blame Pharaoh when the texts are clear God made him a jerk?

"Experts" doubted that Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon(from the Bible) even existed until they found evidence in Babylon.

Spider-Man met Obama. That makes Peter Parker real.

I wonder why ... Maybe because the Egyptians were too afraid after what happened at the Red Sea.

God's armies can be defeated with chariots of iron.

 

[1213]

Why is it alright in the Christian religion for Jesus to be a human sacrifice when all throughout Tanach G-d dismays of such practices and does not command them?

It depends on what people mean with sacrifice.

But first and most important thing is to notice, Jesus had right to for give sins before his death. So, his death was not necessary for that he could forgive sins:

The scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this that speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" But Jesus, perceiving their thoughts, answered them, "Why are you reasoning so in your hearts? Which is easier to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you;' or to say, 'Arise and walk?' But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (he said to the paralyzed man), "I tell you, arise, and take up your cot, and go to your house." Immediately he rose up before them, and took up that which he was laying on, and departed to his house, glorifying God.
Luke 5:21-25

Jesus used his life for our benefit, so that we could get the message. And in that way, he can be seen as sacrifice, who gave his life for us.

 

[syo]

Why is it alright in the Christian religion for Jesus to be a human sacrifice when all throughout Tanach G-d dismays of such practices and does not command them?

jesus came to earth on a mission from god, that is to free humans from sin. the greatest punishment for our sins is death (after adam and eve ate the apple). so jesus had to die so that he will resurrect thus defeating death.

 

[Rival]

jesus came to earth on a mission from god, that is to free humans from sin. the greatest punishment for our sins is death (after adam and eve ate the apple). so jesus had to die so that he will resurrect thus defeating death.

There were/are already methods of repentance. There was no need for a weird god-not-god sacrifice.

 

[syo]

There were/are already methods of repentance. There was no need for a weird god-not-god sacrifice.

could these methods of repentance defeat death?

 

[Rival]

could these methods of repentance defeat death?

Are people still dying?

 

[syo]

Are people still dying?

yes, they do. they will stop dying at the end of time, the apocalypse. i mean when our world will end.

 

[Rival]

yes, they do. they will stop dying at the end of time, the apocalypse. i mean when our world will end.

So what exactly did Jesus achieve?

 

[InChrist]

I don't think you are understanding what "saved" means. It means you are cleansed. You no longer WANT to be evil. Remember this one author in the bible who complains to God that he can't prophesy because he has a filthy (&(**^*^*^ mouth? A bite of some hot coals and God was satisfied.



I don't see a point to a Savior if he can't save anything. Just seems like a waste of time, to me.

"Saved" involves more than being cleansed. Sure, God forgives and cleanses those who trust Jesus to "save" them...but those who are saved first repent,see their sin and need for a Savior. So the desire ( from one's own heart and mind, not a forced zap from God) to be saved comes before one is saved. This is important because God has made humans in His own image with a will and ability to respond freely with love and trust toward Him, or not.

Clearly the prophet Isaiah had already placed his trust in the God of Israel because he already was being used by God as a messenger to the nation and when Isaiah saw the throne of God he was well aware of his shortcomings in the Presence of God and have every desire to be pure before God. The burning coal was simply symbolic of Isaiah's willing attitude to be completely cleansed by God's refining fire.