Blood sacrifice, i.e. animal sacrifice

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]

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.

This is in fact wrong. The idea that Jesus' sacrifice was an offer of appeasement to a vengeful Father was condemned by St Augustine:

Chapter 11.— A Difficulty, How We are Justitified in the Blood of the Son of God.

15. But what is meant by "justified in His blood?" What power is there in this blood, I beseech you, that they who believe should be justified in it? And what is meant by "being reconciled by the death of His Son?" Was it indeed so, that when God the Father was angry with us, He saw the death of His Son for us, and was appeased towards us? Was then His Son already so far appeased towards us, that He even deigned to die for us; while the Father was still so far angry, that except His Son died for us, He would not be appeased? And what, then, is that which the same teacher of the Gentiles himself says in another place: "What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; how has He not with Him also freely given us all things?" Pray, unless the Father had been already appeased, would He have delivered up His own Son, not sparing Him for us? Does not this opinion seem to be as it were contrary to that? In the one, the Son dies for us, and the Father is reconciled to us by His death; in the other, as though the Father firstloved us, He Himself on our account does not spare the Son, He Himself for us delivers Him up to death. But I see that the Father loved us also before, not only before the Son died for us, but before He created the world; the apostle himself being witness, who says, "According as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world." Nor was the Son delivered up for us as it were unwillingly, the Father Himself not sparing Him; for it is said also concerning Him, "Who loved me, and delivered up Himself for me." Therefore together both the Father and the Son, and the Spirit of both, work all things equally and harmoniously; yet we are justified in the blood of Christ, and we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. And I will explain, as I shall be able, here also, how this was done, as much as may seem sufficient.

De Trinitate, 13.11.15
http://newadvent.org/fathers/130113.htm

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]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.

This is in fact wrong. The idea that Jesus' sacrifice was an offer of appeasement to a vengeful Father was cond ...[text shortened]... sufficient.[/quote]
De Trinitate, 13.11.15
http://newadvent.org/fathers/130113.htm[/b]

is it no one of the reasons that Mary worship fomented, in that God was portrayed as a vengeful and autocratic God and thus is was thought that Mary could appease or petition God on behalf of the devotee.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Here's something you might find interesting.

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

Here's an excerpt:
[quote]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 4:1-3 a method of appeasement.

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

===============================
Jesus did not teach blood sacrifice as a method of appeasement.

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

Please give us an example of how Paul invented the teaching of blood atonement. You have the book of Acts recording of his messages plus some 13 epistles (give or take the book of Hebrews).

Demonstrate to us Paul's introduction of this teaching into the New Testament.

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]

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

Seems like your position is as follows:

Pointing out that Jesus taught that one cannot continue to commit sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" is to "excuse a sinful lifestyle."

Advocating that one can continue to commit sin (and cannot keep from committing sin) and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" so long as one "professes belief" is not to "excuse a sinful lifestyle".

You're going to have to explain that one. Seems like it's the other way around to me.

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" / ...[text shortened]... y that it did not fulfill the requirements of a valid blood sacrifice anyway.

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

------ToOne---------------

A highly ironic thing to say! I think if you look back over this thread you will find that I was the first person to actually quote Jesus word for word on this subject.

I also notice that you have as yet found anything else that Jesus said that explicitly and directly contradicts what he said in Matt 26:26...........

"For this is my blood of the new testament (covenant) , which is shed for many for the remission of sins. "

You start a thread about blood sacrifice , Jesus and sin and then waffle on about your ideas - me? - I quoted him directly and explicitly talking on this very subject.

You then have the audacity to claim that I am "speaking for Jesus" somehow as if I am distorting his message? When you pay no attention to what Jesus actually says on the subject?

I assume you can explain why Jesus said these words and what they actually mean? If you can't then why start a thread on it and then waffle on about Jesus' "explicit teachings.

He's obviously saying something very very important in Matt 26:26 and it's obviously something to do with comparing his own up and coming death with creating a new covenant and involving remission of sin via a blood sacrifice (symbolic or otherwise).

I assume you have thought out a cogent theory as to what the hell he was on about here? Surely you would have expected someone to quote Jesus explicitly (matt 26:26) and ask you for a reasonable explanation for it. Tell me you have a back up plan.

Do you even feel a logical obligation to find an explanation for Matt 26:26 ? Not even for your own curiosity? Or are you playing pick and mix with Jesus's words again?

Do you think he was drunk for example? Or deranged? Maybe he had an "off" day and didn't realise that people would link his words with scriptural prophecy and Jewish passover theology?

Imagine Jesus saying " Oh no guys , I didn't mean it like that , you got the wrong idea , doh!"

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is it no one of the reasons that Mary worship fomented, in that God was portrayed as a vengeful and autocratic God and thus is was thought that Mary could appease or petition God on behalf of the devotee.

Possibly some superstitious Christians have believed that. It is not however consonant with the true teachings of the Church. God is not angry or wrathful (except in the metaphorical sense employed by Scripture.) He does not need intercessors to placate Him. The redemption was not a matter of God being one over by Jesus' suffering, as if God enjoys persecution. ThinkOfOne has failed to offer a formula of the redemption which takes into account the variety of historical views on it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]I find that those who reinterpret scripture usually do so to excuse a sinful lifestyle.

Seems like your position is as follows:

Pointing out that Jesus taught that one cannot continue to commit sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" is to "excuse a sinful lifestyle."

Advocating that one can continue to commit sin (and cann ...[text shortened]... ing to have to explain that one. Seems like it's the other way around to me.[/b]

===============================
Pointing out that Jesus taught that one cannot continue to commit sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" is to "excuse a sinful lifestyle."
================================


I have only ONE question for you.

Do you intend to answer questions put to you in this discussion ?

A Yes or a No will suffice.
If you say "No", I suppose you have that right. But I will know not to waste time here asking you anything.

Please answer this question then in the affirmative or in the negative.
Do you intend to answer quetions put to you in this discussion ?

Originally posted by Conrau K
Possibly some superstitious Christians have believed that. It is not however consonant with the true teachings of the Church. God is not angry or wrathful (except in the metaphorical sense employed by Scripture.) He does not need intercessors to placate Him. The redemption was not a matter of God being one over by Jesus' suffering, as if God enjoys persecut ...[text shortened]... fer a formula of the redemption which takes into account the variety of historical views on it.

yes i agree with your original point, in fact when i read thinkofones post, i could not believe that someone could read scripture and completely miss the point of atonement and propitiatory sacrifice. To state that it was to appease or placate God, i have never in fact considered. Anyhow, to this latter point, yes i also agree with you, i just remember reading it some place and wondered if it was true 🙂

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]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.

This is in fact wrong. The idea that Jesus' sacrifice was an offer of appeasement to a vengeful Father was cond sufficient.[/quote]
De Trinitate, 13.11.15
http://newadvent.org/fathers/130113.htm[/b]

Whether it is "appease", "gain favor", "justify", "reconcile" etc. it amounts to the same underlying concept: A primitive substitutionary sacrifice. In the case of Christianity, a sacrifice of God that was initiated by God whether it was to "appease", "gain favor", "justify", or reconcile. God really couldn't have just decided that it would hence forth be so?

That Augustine could really dish out some serious doubletalk.

Are the teachings of Augustine recognize by all of Christianity?

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===============================
Jesus did not teach blood sacrifice as a method of appeasement.

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

Please give us an example of how Paul invented the teaching of blood atonement. You have the book of Acts recording of his message ...[text shortened]... of Hebrews).

Demonstrate to us Paul's introduction of this teaching into the New Testament.[/b]

I'll pass.

What's important is that it wasn't Jesus.

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

------ToOne---------------

A highly ironic thing to say! I think if you look back over this thread you will find that I was the first person to actually quote Jesus word for word on this subject.

I also notice that you have as yet ng " Oh no guys , I didn't mean it like that , you got the wrong idea , doh!"

Try rereading my posts. Actually it'd be really good if you read them for comprehension which, given your track record, doesn't seem likely.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]===============================
Pointing out that Jesus taught that one cannot continue to commit sin and have "eternal life" / "heaven" / "salvation" is to "excuse a sinful lifestyle."
================================


I have only ONE question for you.

Do you intend to answer questions put to you in this discussion ?

A or in the negative.
Do you intend to answer quetions put to you in this discussion ?[/b]

Instead of asking me questions that are not relevant to the topic, why don't you present views that are relevant to the topic of the thread?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Whether it is "appease", "gain favor", "justify", etc. it amounts to the same underlying concept: A primitive substitutionary sacrifice. In the case of Christianity, a sacrifice of God that was initiated by God whether it was to "appease", "gain favor" or "justify".

That Augustine could really dish out some serious doubletalk.

Are the teachings of Augustine recognize by all of Christianity?

Whether it is "appease", "gain favor", "justify", etc. it amounts to the same underlying concept: A primitive substitutionary sacrifice. In the case of Christianity, a sacrifice of God that was initiated by God whether it was to "appease", "gain favor" or "justify".

I would reject the words 'appease' and 'gain favour'. 'Justify' is acceptable in the sense of 'To make righteous' but not in the sense of 'to excuse' (which is close to 'appease' anyway). I would also take the idea of 'substitutionary sacrifice' with a grain of salt. There are two points to consider about the significance of Christ's sacrifice (which you seemingly ignore):

1. It is exemplary and pedagogical. It teaches what Christian discipleship entails. Some Christians have gone to the extreme end that Christ's sacrifice was redemptive only in the sense that it was instructive about how people may be saved -- Christ said that to be disciple, one had to carry his cross and follow him. Consequently the crucifixion is interpreted as a divine lesson, the whole moral of discipleship brutally enacted. All Christians, I should think, would accept this analysis of the crucifixion to some extent.

2. It is healing and divinising. Early Christian theologians emphasised the role of the incarnation in the history of redemption. Since Jesus Christ is man and God, he can be a go-between, a mediator, between God and mankind. Thus, in the sacraments, in which we are joined to his body, each individual is healed and in a way made divine. Through Jesus Christ, man and God, man comes to God. St Augustine argued that Jesus Christ's redemption was efficacious because of this 'transitivity'. It was not a mere payment of a loan but an act of reconciliation and communion in the sense that human nature is fully united with divine nature.

Are the teachings of Augustine recognize by all of Christianity?

No, of course not. But if you are going to criticise a Christian belief, you should acknowledge the plurality of theories. You have to recognise that beliefs are always mediated historically and culturally, that they come in history and are sensitive to that period and culture.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Try rereading my posts. Actually it'd be really good if you read them for comprehension which, given your track record, doesn't seem likely.

What do you mean "re-read your posts" ?

I did re read and you did not quote what Jesus said on the very subject your thread is based on. Namely , his blood , his death and sin.

I was the first to quote him on this subject.

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and break 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


How do you expect anyone to take you seriously on this subject if you have no answer to Matt26:26?

What are your thoughts on these words of Jesus?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Instead of asking me questions that are not relevant to the topic, why don't you present views that are relevant to the topic of the thread?

He's quite entitled to ask you whether you will answer anyone's questions. Your track record in this area is ....shall we say.......not exemplary.

Sometimes I wonder what you would do or what you would say if everyone just ignored you. You obviously have no intention of debating on a level playing field or arguing in a way that holds you to any responsibility to answer any challenge put to you. So why should anyone bother?

Maybe , if no-one bothered to answer authentically to anything you said you would get an idea of what it felt like. But then you would probably grind your axe somewhere else and inflict your mantras on some other unsuspecting forum. You obviously get off on posting here - but what if people just got bored of your "I'm not answering that one" stance? No fun for you then , eh?

No doubt if we did all ignore you as determinedly as you ignore our questions we would all be called "childish"? But hey , it wouldn't matter , you could have a little 'ol thread all of your own and then no-one would be able to throw in those nasty objections and challenges.

(anyone out there up for ignoring this guy - since it seems he obviously won't answer a straight question?)