Blood Sacrifice?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Azazel) [Goat That Disappears].

The word “Azazel” occurs four times in the Bible, in regulations pertaining to Atonement Day.—Le 16:8, 10, 26.

The etymology of this word is disputed. If we hold to the spelling in the Hebrew Masoretic text, azazel seems to be a combination of two root words meaning “goat” and “disappear.” Thus the meaning “Goat ...[text shortened]... mplete oblivion. In these ways the goat “for Azazel” pictures the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.[/b]

your thoughts on this gentlemen would be welcome. Does your theology and understanding reject or accept this Jaywill? Does it answer any of your concerns Lemony Yellow.

Originally posted by jaywill
Only thing more boring then sermonizing is a person seeming to ask when his mind is already made up.

Not much of an inquiry. Seems you've already made up your mind to understand redemption as a matter "scapegoat" (your prefered term) - which, if so important, is curiously lacking in the entire New Testament.

Sorry to get your undies all in a bunch. I thought I was simply relaying some facts to you: fact 1, that you failed to supply the types of reasons I had asked for; fact 2, you pretty much acknowledged that failure and were refreshingly candid in that respect, which I appreciated; fact 3, I didn't, however, appreciate the sermonizing you did, which I found neither helpful nor relevant.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your thoughts on this gentlemen would be welcome. Does your theology and understanding reject or accept this Jaywill? Does it answer any of your concerns Lemony Yellow.

I would appreciate it if you would cite the source for your prior post.

Does it answer any of your concerns Lemony Yellow.

To be honest, not really. I am already generally aware of the symbolic aspects your post describes and I appreciate your offerings there (which are taken from a Watchtower source). Beyond that I am already aware that many people take it to be the case that the sacrifice of Jesus somehow "carried away" sins of the faithful; and I am already aware that many people take it to be the case that the sacrifice somehow actually carried moral value and that God "recognized this transfer of merit". None of that addresses my inquiry, which had to do with evidential reasons for an underyling assumption of this type of scapegoat doctrine. The underlying assumption is something like that the blood sacrifice of an innocent (or as your post says a "perfect human life'😉 can bring about moral balance (or can be expected to conduce to such things as moral balance or justice). My question basically is, what are some reasons why I should think this assumption is true? As far as I can tell, your post doesn't offer any such reasons. Your post states, here and there, that the sacrifice of Jesus brought about some sort of moral balance, but it doesn't seem to support those statements in any way that would address my inquiry.

I had asked the same question of jaywill, and he basically just responded that it is just the way it is. But that doesn't satisfy my inquiry because I am asking why I should think that's the way it is. Jaywill also basically said that God correctly understands that this is the way it is even if we do not. But as I see it, that also fails to meet my inquiry because it is just question-begging, and it doesn't answer my question in any non-ersatz way.

My concern is that, prima facie, it doesn't seem to make sense that a good way to bring about moral balance or justice would be to bring about the suffering and blood sacrifice of some innocent. On the surface, I make very little sense of that idea. So, delving deeper, exactly what reasons would we have to endorse such an idea?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I would appreciate it if you would cite the source for your prior post.

[b]Does it answer any of your concerns Lemony Yellow.

To be honest, not really. I am already generally aware of the symbolic aspects your post describes and I appreciate your offerings there (which are taken from a Watchtower source). Beyond that I am already aware that ma ...[text shortened]... ea. So, delving deeper, exactly what reasons would we have to endorse such an idea?[/b]

mmm, this is indeed a vewy vewy good question and as usual source is Jehovahs Witnesses. Please consider this, for it seems to me to contain the moral elements that you seek, the satisfying of justice, a propitiation or covering, adherences to his own moral standards on the part of God. The first paragraph is just there by virtue of reference to the breach between humans and God.

Atonement
Reconciliation made possible. Human sin causes division between God and man, for Jehovah does not approve of sin. The breach between man and his Creator could be healed only by fulfillment of the requisite of a true “covering,” or atonement, for such sin. (Isa 59:2; Hab 1:13; Eph 2:3) But Jehovah God has made reconciliation between himself and sinful mankind possible through the perfect man Jesus Christ. Thus, the apostle Paul wrote: “We are also exulting in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.” (Ro 5:11; To come into Jehovah’s favor, it is necessary to accept God’s provision for reconciliation through Jesus Christ. Only by this means is it possible to come into a position comparable to that of Adam prior to his sin. God’s love is displayed in making such reconciliation possible.—Ro 5:6-10.

Justice satisfied by propitiation.
Still, justice required satisfaction. Man, though created perfect, fell from that state through sin and thus Adam and his offspring came under God’s condemnation. Justice and fidelity to principles of righteousness necessitated that God execute the sentence of his law against disobedient Adam. But love moved God to purpose a substitutional arrangement whereby justice would be satisfied, and yet without any violation of justice, repentant offspring of sinner Adam could be forgiven and could achieve peace with God. (Col 1:19-23) Therefore, Jehovah “sent forth his Son as a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins.” (1Jo 4:10; Heb 2:17) Propitiation is that which makes propitious, or favorable. Jesus’ propitiatory sacrifice removes the reason for God to condemn a human creature and makes possible the extending to him of God’s favor and mercy. This propitiation removes the charge of sin and the resulting condemnation to death in the case of spiritual Israel and all others availing themselves of it.—1Jo 2:1, 2; Ro 6:23.

The idea of substitution is prominent in certain Biblical texts relating to atonement. For instance, Paul observed that “Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures” (1Co 15:3), and that “Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse instead of us [Jews], because it is written: ‘Accursed is every man hanged upon a stake.’” (Ga 3:13; De 21:23) Peter commented: “He himself bore our sins in his own body upon the stake, in order that we might be done with sins and live to righteousness. And ‘by his stripes you were healed.’” (1Pe 2:24; Isa 53:5) Peter also wrote: “Christ died once for all time concerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, that he might lead you to God.”—1Pe 3:18.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
mmm, this is indeed a vewy vewy good question and as usual source is Jehovahs Witnesses. Please consider this, for it seems to me to contain the moral elements that you seek, the satisfying of justice, a propitiation or covering, adherences to his own moral standards on the part of God. The first paragraph is just there by virtue of reference to the ...[text shortened]... cerning sins, a righteous person for unrighteous ones, that he might lead you to God.”—1Pe 3:18.

Justice and fidelity to principles of righteousness necessitated that God execute the sentence of his law against disobedient Adam. But love moved God to purpose a substitutional arrangement whereby justice would be satisfied, and yet without any violation of justice, repentant offspring of sinner Adam could be forgiven and could achieve peace with God.

You seem to be reiterating the doctrine of the scapegoat; whereas I am looking for discussion on how it makes any sense.

For instance, if "justice and fidelity to principles of righteousness necessitated that God execute the sentence of his law against disobedient Adam", then why wouldn't justice and fidelity to principles of righteousness necessitate that God execute the sentence of his law against disobedients to follow? Are you saying that justice in the time of Adam necessitated something other than what justice necessitates nowadays?

Also, it says that "love moved God to purpose a substitutional arrangement whereby justice would be satisfied" alternatively. But, how is it loving and just to execute sentence on an innocent in place of the guilty? First, it doesn't seem loving to make an innocent suffer; second, it doesn't seem just to punish an innocent; and third, it doesn't seem just to let the guilty off, if we are supposing they are in fact deserving of the punishment. Of course, if one were placed in a forced-choice scenario between making a whole bunch of people suffer or making just one person suffer, then perhaps it would be better to choose the latter. But, why would God -- an omnipotent being -- ever be handcuffed to such a forced-choice scenario? And further, why or how would justice ever necessitate such a forced choice scenario like that?

Originally posted by whodey
Having been inspired by TOO's last thread, I thought I would share my own view of the need for blood sacrifice.

I think we can all agree on one thing, which is that all righteousness comes from God, not us. Such righteousness, is either written in our hearts, or given to us by his word, or through personal revelations etc. Our participation is wecolmed, ...[text shortened]... us points for the here after. This is why blood sacrifice was needed before Christ and after.

"I think we can all agree on one thing, which is that all righteousness comes from God, not us"

Nope.