Christians claim that Jesus shedding his blood on the cross was a necessary condition for the their god to forgive sins. However, after 2000 years, is it possible that Christians will actually consider what their Bible says and admit: "Jesus Christ, we've got it all wrong"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh dear. If God had only known about YouTube, the atheist's main source for factual. Because of that oversight, God went ahead and had Jesus die for nothing.
ReplyDeleteThank you atheists for straightening us out about God and His plans for your salvation.
I just thought of another thing. This guy in the video completely ignores what the Bible says about sacrifices right from Cain and Able, all the way through Leviticus and Deuteronomy and then he goes Christianity which actually DID AWAY with the sacrificial system. He takes the very thing that does away with the sacrificial system, something that had been part of the Hebrew culture for thousands of years and he blames Christianity FOR the sacrificial system. You atheists. You're kind of precious. Like a child that drools just a bit but you love him anyway.
ReplyDeleteLike a child that would believe the most fantastically unbelievable, ridiculous and silly stories? Just because we grown ups read it to them out of an old book
ReplyDeleteThere goes Rabhimself commenting with no logic and reason.
ReplyDeleteI must comment that the video producer as well as those commenting are very ingnorant of salvation as it pertains to Sacrafice.
See I will explain further in a later posting because this needs to be composed carefully and thoroughly. I will prepare a couple pieces explaining how we as humans are not able to sacrafice anything for the forgiveness of sins. Yes we did and sometimes it was requested but an effort toward rightousness superceeded such. The only one that could give a sacrafice for forgiveness of our sins and salvation was God, and he did that with his Son.
Be prepared to be educated.
Again this video was presented out of ingnorance and is confirmed by some on this website with the like. I will create three posts that acurately substanciate Christs salvation through his death on the cross. These which have nothing to do with mans sacrafice in old testement scripture.
Inform you later.
It is ironic how there are individuals who give no credibility to the bible then use it in thier defense. If you are ignorant and do not understand the scriptures then be careful, you are giving me a basis on which to expose you.
Post Part 1
ReplyDeleteAs I expressed in my previous statement I will show how the video in some scripture reveals God expressing to his people the mere necessity of sacrificing was not a preequisite for the forgiveness of sins.
Although the sacrifices that were brought to the temple were seen as a way to worship God, the primary purpose of the sacrifices within the Mosaic system was maintaining fellowship between God and his people.
There were five sacrifices a individual could perform which allowed them to have fellowship with God:
1.) sin offering
2.) guilt offering
3.) burnt offering
4.) peace offering
5.) grain offering
Each of them had a different purpose
Sin offering was to make atonement for the worshiper who had committed sins unintentionally.
The Guilt offering was a trespass offering much like that of the sin.
The burnt offering was a voluntary offering that demonstrated that an individual was completely devoting themselves to God.
The peace offering was a voluntary offering of an animal by an individual so that they could have communion with God and others.
The grain offering was an offering that allowed an individual to worship and thank God for his wonderful provisions.
All Mosaic Law sacrafices were a shadow of the ultimate sacrifice that was to come through Jesus Christ.
I believe God expresses clearly in old testament the need for rightousness to superceed sacrafice.
I inform ad nausiam to Gods discontent with the quality of sacrafice in Malachi.
See the forgiveness of sin was not contigent on sacrafice
Sacrafice was a sign of loyalty to the creator by man. Most sacrifices did not include an animal, some would sacrifice the best of what ever it was they had. This could be crops, fabrics, or any manner of items.
Now to the Crux
I will use Earl Radmachers perfect illustaration from his book Salvation to show how the video is ingnorant of the meaning of mans sacrafice and Gods sacrafice for Man.
A sinner, the ,offender is incapable of removing his offense between himself and God, the offended one. So God did for the people what they could never do for themselves. What man ought to do he can't. But because God proprieted God's wrath, God is now free to take intiative to reach out to sinners and reconcile them for himself. That is why Paul wrote that God " reconciled us to himself through Jesus Christ" and " God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.
Post part 2
ReplyDeletePart one dealt with Reconciliation of God and Man through Jesus Christ
Part 2 will deal with Redemption
Dr Earl Radmacher's Book salvation is referenced.
The verb redeem may be rendered " to redeem, avenge,revenge,ransom,do part of a kinsman. "It conveys buying back something which is lost by paying a price". God promised to be the Redeemer. The Book of Ruth presents a beautiful potrayal of Christ, our kinsman-redeemer,he had to meet five qaulifications.
first,he must be a blood relative of the one he redeems (Duet25:5;Ruth3:9). This is the requirement that brought the Son of God from heaven to earth to become man(John 1:14;Phil2;5-8). Second, The redeemer must be able to redeem (Ruth2:1). Christ alone of our redemption(Acts20:28; Peter1:18-19). Third, The redeemer must be willing to redeem (Ruth3:11). Christ voluntarily left heaven (Phil 2:5-6) to provide a ransom for us (Matt. 20:28. Fourth, the redeemer must be free of the calamity that had hapened to the one redeemed. Christ had no sin nature for He is God and never sinned (2 cor. 5:21). Fifth, the redeemer must act to redeem by paying a price. Jesus did this in His death on the cross.
Then we can get into the translation into redeem from it's original form which could also mean "to require blood, to avenge bloodshed and how the redeemer or as Dr Vernon McGee explained, " that aspect of the meaning was wonderfully fulfilled in Christ.
Again, “the Lord Almighty, the God of Israel says: …I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command: Obey me and I will be your God and you will be my people. Walk in all my ways I command you, that it may go well with you” (Jer 7:21-23).
ReplyDeleteThe blood of bulls, goats and lambs don’t remove sin and never did. God forgives and removes sins as he sees a repentant and sincere heart desiring to follow him. Continually God makes plain what he expects from man: “For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos 6:6).
What makes Christ’s sacrifice efficacious to forgive the sins of the world? Jesus’ sacrifice was not vicarious—he was the Lamb of God to be slain for the sins of the world. He willingly offered up himself for that purpose. So what made his sacrifice acceptable to his Father, Yahweh? Was it that he was “worth” more than the entire creation? Remember, God loved the world before he offered his son, and mercy and forgiveness is not based upon worth or merit.
What made Jesus the perfect and supreme sacrifice was that he was the unique, one and only Son of His Majesty; and, most importantly, that he was well pleasing to his Father. Jesus’ sacrifice is effective on our behalf because it has been accepted by God. This is called God’s mercy. “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood” (Rm 3:28).
By the way the last posting was from a blog from Adam Pastor, perfectly presented.
ReplyDeleteTo summarize with being conscious to redundancy.
It is apparent that Old Testament sacrafices were in large part given as a request to God from man as recognition of sin and guilt as well as an expression of thanks and praise.
It was not a neccessary action for God to forgive sin, and it was for the individuals forgiveness exclusively.
Jesus Christ's sacrafice was for all of mankind and was worth more than anything man could began to offer.
Old Testament sacrifices did prepare man however for the understanding of the sacrifice of His Son Jesus.
David,
ReplyDeleteI see you've attacked me again.
Makarios said:
' Like a child that drools just a bit but you love him anyway.'
So i responded on the same level and on the same note. If you cannot understand that then you are a half-wit. As for the latter section of my reply, children are duped into believing this stuff every day, there is nothing illogical or unreasonable about that.
How dare you have a dig at me yet again. If you want to come across as intelligent perhaps you should quit making senseless digs at people. Had i been religious, and responded on the same note with religious backing, you would've said nothing. Yet, because you know i'm on the other side of the fence you decide to put a little dig in?
You don't see me commenting left right and centre about my opinion on the poor logic and reasoning behind you're entire faith. Yet you are quick to point out when my posts are devoid of logic and reason - even when that is simply not the case.
You just seem like a bit of a troll to be honest.
It is unfortunate that the rebuttals to the video don't address the video itself.
ReplyDeleteThe main points in the video were a) god doesn't require blood sacrifice for forgiveness b) christians later modified other passages in the old testament to make it seem that god DID need a blood sacrifice (namely jesus' blood).
By the way, if you want to show an atheist that they are wrong, don't be such a jerk to begin with, for example Makarios in your comment you say "You atheists. You're kind of precious. Like a child that drools just a bit but you love him anyway." Really? Is that how you want to argue this? Okay, then You christians. You're kind of precious. Like a child that drools just a bit but you love him anyway.
How was that Makarious? Helpful?
Okay now you David. First can't you take criticism seriously? I mean here you go with 3 long comments but you have to start off with a poorly thought out dig at the previous commenter. Sheesh what a jerk you are! Really though, I would give your comments more attention if you addressed the points in the video directly and cited your sources better. Keep in mind that someone might actually be interested in the effort you are putting in & if you're not up to that task then maybe you shouldn't bother at all.
By the way Rabhimself, I think I completely got what you were saying, so I didn't feel it needed comment. Then I see you added another comment because apparently certain people have commented on your comments before (and did a poor job of it!)
ReplyDeleteWell I just wanted to say "hang in there" it may seem like a long pointless road, but I got something out it so thanks.
First, I don't like Makarios comments and yes after he suggests a few points of debate he throws a dig at rabhimself that do not in any way add intellect to his statement,and I do not agree with it, so I apologize for not recognizing that in my comment.
ReplyDeleteLet me make myself clear, I in no way used insulting gestures or remarks. Yes, I mentioned Ignorance, which is not an insult it means to lack knowledge pertaining to a subject. I am ignorant of Quantum Physics, therefore I do not debate it. I also used the statement of no logic no reason, show me logic and reason from Rabhimself? It is not an isult it is fact.
I do not personally attach with words like Jerk, half-wit, etc.
Show me my personal attacks or digs and I will retract them and apologize.
In reference to what I've stated in my previous comments, I think it states quite clear, and now I'm arguing ad nauseum that Old Testament sacrifice was not wanted by God, because there was no sacrifice man could give to redeem, or clear himslef. God could only provide the means for such sacrafice and he did, not for 1 individual but for all men. I'm sorry if you cannot see the logic as it pertains to the initial introduction to the video.
Christians claim that Jesus shedding his blood on the cross was a necessary condition for the their god to forgive sins. However, after 2000 years, is it possible that Christians will actually consider what their Bible says and admit: "Jesus Christ, we've got it all wrong"?
David - what is wrong with you?
ReplyDeleteMakarios said:
' Like a child that drools just a bit but you love him anyway.'
So i responded on the same level and on the same note. If you cannot understand that then you are a half-wit. As for the latter section of my reply, children are duped into believing this stuff every day, there is nothing illogical or unreasonable about that.
The above is a copy and paste job from my first response. I reiterate there is nothing illogical or unreasonable about it. If you don't understand this then you are tiehr deliberately choosing to ignore it, or you are indeed being a half wit.
FYI, it gets pretty insulting when someone insists you are not commenting with logic or reasoning - even when you are. Although not directly a personal dig, you are still digging at me.
I have to ask, what makes you so high and mighty? You always try to come across like an infallable intellectual heavyweight. In your world, everything you say is spot on, anyone against you can't possibly get one over on you.
You claim it is fact that what i said had no logic and reasoning. I want a run down of my entire statement, baring in mind it is directly a response to makarios, where you highlight all the bits that are illogical and unreasonable. The only thing i see wrong with it is that i missed a question mark at the very end. Sue me.
Do you think i'm an idiot david? The way you speak and refer to me certainly gives the impression you do.
Now you are calling yourself names on my behalf.
ReplyDeleteShow me logic in this statement and i'll concur
Rabhimself
Like a child that would believe the most fantastically unbelievable, ridiculous and silly stories? Just because we grown ups read it to them out of an old book
You are refering to a book that is held sacred by billions of people. If you are not referring to the peoples belief in the Bible I apologize. People who do not have the same belief as you.
Yes I'm not here to argue for Makarios
and he is void of reason and logic as well.
unfortaunately I have had experience with you in a previous blog using the same tactics name calling and attacks on religion.
So getting past that issue what do you think of my response to the video???????
Do you see how God not requiring a preequisite for the forgiveness of sin through sacrsfice from an idividual whos sacrafice had no real meaning to God. Thier sacrafices where for themsevles individually and God even said what use are they to me. Now in reference to Christs sacrafice that was God giving the sacrafice for all mankind, the only sacrafice that would have any value to him. Now we need to stay on premise, please.
Frogive for my mispelling of sacrafice,
ReplyDeleteit's sacrifice
It doesn't matter if the book is held sacred by billions or not. The point is there is nothing illogical about anything i said, or unreasonable. It was a response to makarios, and more specifically his statement aliking atheists to a drooling child. I have support from another blogger on this matter so it isn't as if i'm fabricating this in my head.
ReplyDeleteOnce again i'll reiterate - i responded in kind. Just because you do not like what i said does not mean you can brandish it illogical and unreasonable. Nothing you can say can change that.
The 'tactics' you refer to in the other thread of name calling is just ridiculous. I challenged you on the concept of god aiding others, giving specific examples, which you deemed unrelated to the point at hand (which it wasn't, you advocate that he helps alcoholics who turn to him, so i challenged you through specific examples about this supposed help) and chose to brandish me illogical and devoid of reason.
As for you're longwinded response, analysing it as both an atheist and a rational person - it doesn't make sense.
Why would the most intelligent being deem it necessary to send his son to earth (who was actually god...), only to sacrifice him for us? I do not understand why this sacrifice was necessary.
Secondly, this information is taken out of the bible. From my experiences and the things i have witnessed, hardcore christians always find a way to rebut any points made about the stories in there that are ridiculous/thought provoking/illogical etc etc. So does it matter if i were to say i disagree with you?
In any case, the video maker is trying to point out that the sacrifice of jesus was not necessary, and from what i can see he makes a good job of it. Basically, isn't what god wants... yet he sacrifices his only son. To me, David, that doesn't make sense.
Now i warn you, i'm going to go off the topic of the video here. Please though, endulge me and read the remainder of this post and reply. I might aswell inform you that i regard all holy sciptures (not just the christian bible) to be a load of nonsense. They are all full of ridiculous stories that do not merit belief from any critically thinking person. It's absolutely fascinating - if somebody today claimed to be the second coming of jesus, and that he had turned the red sea into a sea of red wine, you would NOT believe this until it was proved to you.
ReplyDeleteYet you believe the stories of the bible without this crucial evidence. David, you always bang on about logic and reason - do you, or do you not apply this to your holy book? I mean, seriously, do you honestly believe an elderly man and his family herded two of EVERY creature onto a massive ark, before the entire earth was submerged in water?
Do you honestly believe that a man died, lay dead for a whole day, then came back to life afterwards?
Do you honestly believe that moses parted the red sea as if it were a pair of curtains on a rail?
I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this. To me, you are heavily deluded, hence why you so viciously defend your FAITH. I'm going to guess that you are a mature adult, at least middle aged, who has been swallowing this nonsense for so much of your life, that it is now integral to who you are. I do not think anything could break you away from this.
One of the reasons why i get so agitated when you accuse me of being devoid of logic or reason is because i find it cringe-worthingly ironic that you can be so obtuse to say something like that - given what you believe.
I just want to ask you a barrel-load of questions as to why you believe in all this? Why you don't believe in other equally implausible gods/religions/myths?
I mean, if you ask any atheist why they don't believe in god, they will give you the most logical, rational and reasonable response anyone could give you - there is no evidence for any of it. For everything but religion, this is the most rational position for any critically thinking person to take, yet any hardcore religious person cannot believe it when someone claims they don't believe in THEIR god, i had to stress the word their, as i have already mentioned elsewhere that that they don't believe in all the other gods ever cocneptualised.
Please, David, i'd really like to know why you so strongly believe, given that a) there is no proper evidence, and b) you seem to hold logic and reason as virtues.
David will presumably tell us that the existence of his god and the authenticity of his Bible are much more plausible than all the other gods and holy books that he rejects. But why? Why doesn't he swear by the Upanishads or the Koran or the Book of Mormon? Has he read those? If we are going to believe in angels, he should check out the Book of Mormon - it's much more current than his favorite novella. If he is impressed by age and verse, he should definitely go with the Upanishads.
ReplyDeleteWhy doesn't anybody believe in Thor and Zeus these days? Those guys were cool - gods I could almost believe in.
I agree TAM. Having a chance to breed with a god and produce half-god offspring would do wonders for the gene pool.
ReplyDeleteMan...I haven't seen such foolish name calling since elementary school. There is plenty of non Christian sources that uphold the Authenticity and Historicity of the Bible. Now I submit that if you searched yourselves about this issue you would find overwhelming evidence for it's cause.So assuming I am corrcet and the Bible could be proven to be accurate and reliable then what does that say for it's Author? If the Bible is accurate then what it says about God is also accurate...as 1 + 1 = 2. Have fun.
ReplyDelete