Blood sacrifice, i.e. animal sacrifice

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice

Animal sacrifice is the ritual killing of an animal as part of a religion. It is practiced by many religions as a means of appeasing a god or gods or changing the course of nature. Animal sacrifice has turned up in almost all cultures, from the Hebrews to the Greeks and Romans and from the Aztecs to the Hindus.

From the most primitive times, there has been a concept of making ritual blood sacrifices in order to appease god(s) or nature. In general, the more valuable the animal the bigger the favor. A large relatively rare animal would be more be more valuable than a small plentiful animal. An unblemished large animal would be more valuable than one with flaws. A human would be more valuable than a large animal. An innocent human (such as children or virgins) the most valuable of all. It's easy to see how such concepts grew out of so many diverse and disparate cultures in primitive man. If you want a favor and it isn't granted, find something more valuable to sacrifice. One can only shake his head at such primitive concepts especially if you consider a god being appeased by blood sacrifice. From the POV of an OOO god it makes no sense. Why would such a god be appeased by such a hollow gesture?

However, it is in these primitive concepts in which Christianity bases its concept of "salvation by grace". Jesus is sacrificed to appease God. Not only innocent, not only human, but God Himself. This makes even less sense. God sent Himself to Earth so that He may sacrifice Himself in order to appease Himself. Seriously, really think about it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice
[quote]Animal sacrifice is the ritual killing of an animal as part of a religion. [b]It is practiced by many religions as a means of appeasing a god or gods or changing the course of nature. Animal sacrifice has turned up in almost all cultures, from the Hebrews to the Greeks and Romans and from the ...[text shortened]... that He may sacrifice Himself in order to appease Himself. Seriously, really think about it.[/b]

It all started in the garden.

If you don't believe what the Bible says about the atonement, then you're toast.

Originally posted by josephw
It all started in the garden.

If you don't believe what the Bible says about the atonement, then you're toast.

Here's something you might find interesting.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Orthodox-Judaism-952/Sacrifices-1.htm

Here's an excerpt:

Contrary to the missionary claim that blood-sacrifice is the only method of atonement in the Bible, there are three methods of atonement clearly defined in the Jewish scriptures: The sin sacrifice (Leviticus 4:1-35), repentance (Deuteronomy 4:26-31; I Kings 8:46-50; Isaiah 55:6-9; Jeremiah 7:3-23; Ezekiel 18:1-23; Hosea 6:6; 14:2-3; Micah 6:6; Psalm 40:7-9 (6-8); 51:16-19), and charity (Proverbs 10:2; 11:4; 16:6; Daniel 4:24; II Chronicles 6:36-39). Moreover, the sin sacrifice (known in the Jewish scriptures as Korban Chatat) did not atone for all types of sin, but rather, only for man's most insignificant iniquity: unintentional sins. The sin sacrifice was inadequate to atone for a transgression committed intentionally.. [Leviticus 17:10-11] does not state or imply that one cannot have atonement for sin without a blood sacrifice. Such a message would contradict all of the Jewish scriptures which clearly outline two other methods of atonement more pleasing to God than a sacrifice - heartfelt repentance and charity.

Jesus taught repentance and to a lesser extent charity. Jesus did not teach blood sacrifice as a method of appeasement.

From what I can tell, it was Paul who returned to the primitive.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice
[quote]Animal sacrifice is the ritual killing of an animal as part of a religion. [b]It is practiced by many religions as a means of appeasing a god or gods or changing the course of nature. Animal sacrifice has turned up in almost all cultures, from the Hebrews to the Greeks and Romans and from the that He may sacrifice Himself in order to appease Himself. Seriously, really think about it.[/b]

Whether it is a ridiculous idea or not is not the main issue.

Personally I can see how some might find it distasteful and a bit primitive. The idea of the passover lamb in Judaic tradition can be seen as primitive.

However , it's an idea that Jesus walked right into fully knowing exactly what he was doing. He spoke clearly about it and , knowing what the Judaic tradition was , he talked about his body as if it were the passover lamb itself. He used all the symbolism of the passover - bread , wine , remission of sin etc.

So ToO , your argument is not with Christianity or Christians . It is with Jesus himself. It may or may not be a primitive concept - but it's a concept that Jesus bought into and went with himself.

Therefore , whether it is a mad or primitive idea or not is irrelevant. Any authentic Christian either has to subscribe to it or by implication say that Jesus was wrong.

Do you think Jesus was wrong?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice
[quote]Animal sacrifice is the ritual killing of an animal as part of a religion. [b]It is practiced by many religions as a means of appeasing a god or gods or changing the course of nature. Animal sacrifice has turned up in almost all cultures, from the Hebrews to the Greeks and Romans and from the ...[text shortened]... that He may sacrifice Himself in order to appease Himself. Seriously, really think about it.[/b]

Whether its ritual sacrifice or blood spilt in the name of a 'holy' crusade, its all abhorrent.
God is life. Is the force of life (animation). Killing intentionally in any manner is wrong and goes against the principal of being an intelligent being.
Of course there is more karma(cause and effect) related to killing a plant than an animal. This is just common sense.

Despite this apparent simple logic , humans continue to find justifications for murder which confounds me. Makes me think there is something wrong with the world.

Religous persons of all kinds have done silly things. The fact that religous leaders(priests) have blessed wars is utterly backward and goes against all that God should stand for. Apparently a bhuddist priest has never blessed a war. Not saying there isn't time for the christian priests to change.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Whether it is a ridiculous idea or not is not the main issue.

Personally I can see how some might find it distasteful and a bit primitive. The idea of the passover lamb in Judaic tradition can be seen as primitive.

However , it's an idea that Jesus walked right into fully knowing exactly what he was doing. He spoke clearly about it and , kno subscribe to it or by implication say that Jesus was wrong.

Do you think Jesus was wrong?

Jesus explicitly taught that righteousness, i.e., following the will of God, is required for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

You can speculate all you want about "symbolism", but that's all it is is speculation.

Nowhere does Jesus teach that God sent Himself to Earth so that He may sacrifice
Himself in order to appease Himself.

You still can't seem to wrap your mind around the difference between explicit teachings and speculation.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Whether its ritual sacrifice or blood spilt in the name of a 'holy' crusade, its all abhorrent.
God is life. Is the force of life (animation). Killing intentionally in any manner is wrong and goes against the principal of being an intelligent being.
Of course there is more karma(cause and effect) related to killing a plant than an animal. This is ju ...[text shortened]... est has never blessed a war. Not saying there isn't time for the christian priests to change.

Yes, it's abhorrent.

What is wrong is man's insistence on being self-centered rather than truth-centered.

Like I've said before, "Christianity is a belief system of the ego, for the ego, by the ego".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus explicitly taught that righteousness, i.e., following the will of God, is required for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

You can speculate all you want about "symbolism", but that's all it is is speculation.

Er no....I fail to see how these words of Jesus can be intepreted as anything else. He said this during a passover meal , which as many know is hugely significant and meaningful for a Jew. Don't forget that Jesus was also given to talking symbolically much of the time so it's no surprise that he would speak like this. You forget that Jesus was a Jew , not a western thinker like you. You dismiss synbolism - Jesus would not have done so.

Even to make any kind of link between his own death and his shedding of blood and the blood of the passover lamb (wine) would have been an incredible thing for a Jew to say. And an incredible thing to hear. The implications of what he said are clear. Not only that - he followed it up with actions and did have his blood shed.

You are entitled to your own views of Jesus , but don't pretend to yourself that these words were not full of meaning for him. And that's the point - not what you or I might think of it but what meaning the words had for him.


"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. " Matt 26:26

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus explicitly taught that righteousness, i.e., following the will of God, is required for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

You can speculate all you want about "symbolism", but that's all it is is speculation.

Nowhere does Jesus teach that God sent Himself to Earth so that He may sacrifice
Himself in order to appease Himself.

You ...[text shortened]... em to wrap your mind around the difference between explicit teachings and speculation.

Nowhere does Jesus teach that God sent Himself to Earth so that He may sacrifice
Himself in order to appease Himself
------ToOne-------------------

Then please tell us all what the *&$% matt 26:26 is all about...????????

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Jesus explicitly taught that righteousness, i.e., following the will of God, is required for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation".

You can speculate all you want about "symbolism", but that's all it is is speculation.

Nowhere does Jesus teach that God sent Himself to Earth so that He may sacrifice
Himself in order to appease Himself.

You ...[text shortened]... em to wrap your mind around the difference between explicit teachings and speculation.

You still can't seem to wrap your mind around the difference between explicit teachings and speculation.
---ToOne------------

Er no ...you can't see that about half of what Jesus said was metaphorical and symbolic. Do you think he didn't know the significance of what he was saying at the last supper?

Think about it logically. Why on earth would Jesus be so stupid and misleading about his blood and death? Has he lead us all a merry dance? Is he an idiot? If so then why believe anything else he says?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Er no....I fail to see how these words of Jesus can be intepreted as anything else. He said this during a passover meal , which as many know is hugely significant and meaningful for a Jew. Don't forget that Jesus was also given to talking symbolically much of the time so it's no surprise that he would speak like this. You forget that Jesus was a Jew , blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. " Matt 26:26

You seem to "speak for Jesus" a lot in order to support your position. My position relies on His explicit words.

It's just as easy to speculate that Jesus saw Himself as a martyr for teaching the laws of God which differed from what the Jews believed them to be. And in light of His EXPLICIT teachings on righteousness being required for "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" makes much more sense.

If you're going to rely so heavily on Jesus being a "Jewish thinker" he'd know the following which I posted earlier.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Orthodox-Judaism-952/Sacrifices-1.htm

Here's an excerpt:

Contrary to the missionary claim that blood-sacrifice is the only method of atonement in the Bible, there are three methods of atonement clearly defined in the Jewish scriptures: The sin sacrifice (Leviticus 4:1-35), repentance (Deuteronomy 4:26-31; I Kings 8:46-50; Isaiah 55:6-9; Jeremiah 7:3-23; Ezekiel 18:1-23; Hosea 6:6; 14:2-3; Micah 6:6; Psalm 40:7-9 (6-8); 51:16-19), and charity (Proverbs 10:2; 11:4; 16:6; Daniel 4:24; II Chronicles 6:36-39). Moreover, the sin sacrifice (known in the Jewish scriptures as Korban Chatat) did not atone for all types of sin, but rather, only for man's most insignificant iniquity: unintentional sins. The sin sacrifice was inadequate to atone for a transgression committed intentionally.. [Leviticus 17:10-11] does not state or imply that one cannot have atonement for sin without a blood sacrifice. Such a message would contradict all of the Jewish scriptures which clearly outline two other methods of atonement more pleasing to God than a sacrifice - heartfelt repentance and charity.

Jesus would also have known blood sacrifice to be inadequate and that repentance and charity are more "pleasing to God" which, no surprise, is what He EXPLICITLY taught.

There are also problems with how this "symbolic sacrifice" was carried out. Namely that it did not fulfill the requirements of a valid blood sacrifice anyway.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
You seem to "speak for Jesus" a lot in order to support your position. My position relies on His explicit words.

It's just as easy to speculate that Jesus saw Himself as a martyr for teaching the laws of God which differed from what the Jews believed them to be. And in light of His EXPLICIT teachings on righteousness being required for "eternal life" / y that it did not fulfill the requirements of a valid blood sacrifice anyway.

It is useless to debate with you in this instance, Tinkofone, because you're disregarding every aspect of scripture which contradicts your claim. In Matthew 26:28 Jesus clearly states that His death on the cross is the blood of the covenant between God and man, "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." This fact leaves your argument undone, and yet you refuse to see it.

Rwingett tried to make the same claim, that the idea of the salvific efficacy of Christ's blood originated with Paul, but in order to do so he had to first assume that Christ did not say the things attributed to Him in Matthew 26:28. Your argument seems to be no different, minus the pretension of knowing that Christ did not say such things.

If you don't believe the word of God, fine. Many people refuse to believe it. Nevertheless, I hope you are able to understand how pointless it is for a believing Christian, who holds to the entire word of God, to argue with an individual like yourself who must hold to a partial reading of the word of God in order to substantiate his claim.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It is useless to debate with you in this instance, Tinkofone, because you're disregarding every aspect of scripture which contradicts your claim. In Matthew 26:28 Jesus clearly states that His death on the cross is the blood of the covenant between God and man, "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." This fact leaves your argument undone, an ust hold to a partial reading of the word of God in order to substantiate his claim.

Actually, what I'm doing is "disregarding every aspect of scripture that contradicts" the teachings of Jesus. I have to believe that you know this as I've stated it often enough, yet you've chosen to represent it a something else. Why so dishonest?

As to Matthew 26:28 the word you quote as translated as "forgiveness" literally means "freedom, dismissal, release" and is only figuratively used for "forgiveness" from the sources I have found.

The same "freedom" from sin that Jesus taught here:
John 8:32-36
So Jesus was saying to those Jews who had believed Him, "If you continue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free...Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin."

It seems quite reasonable to believe Jesus meant "freedom" in Matthew 26:28 as this is part of the foundation of His teachings. Just as following His commandments is at the foundation of His teachings.

Note that Jesus says, ""If you continue in My word...". Not the word of Paul, not the word of the Bible, but His word.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Actually, what I'm doing is "disregarding every aspect of scripture that contradicts" the teachings of Jesus. I have to believe that you know this as I've stated it often enough, yet you've chosen to represent it a something else. Why so dishonest?

As to Matthew 26:28 the word you quote as translated as "forgiveness" literally means "freedom, dismissa ...[text shortened]... My word...". Not the word of Paul, not the word of the Bible, but His word.

"Actually, what I'm doing is "disregarding every aspect of scripture that contradicts" the teachings of Jesus."

The thing is though, there is nothing in scripture that contradicts anything Jesus said.

Your problem is you don't know what you're talking about, and you believe yourself rather than God.

I find that those who reinterpret scripture usually do so to excuse a sinful lifestyle.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Actually, what I'm doing is "disregarding every aspect of scripture that contradicts" the teachings of Jesus."

The thing is though, there is nothing in scripture that contradicts anything Jesus said.

Your problem is you don't know what you're talking about, and you believe yourself rather than God.

I find that those who reinterpret scripture usually do so to excuse a sinful lifestyle.[/b]

hey Joe, where ya going with that gun in your hand?