Blood sacrifice, i.e. animal sacrifice

Originally posted by epiphinehas
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.

Don't forget the bit about Jesus being a socialist. I wonder if TOO thinks this as well? I'm just glad we all have TOO and Rwingett to set Paul and the rest of us straight.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
For whatever reason, those guys like to ask questions like "What do you consider to be sin" when it's irrelevant as Jesus teaches that He will judge. What I think may or may not be sin doesn't matter. Jesus will judge. For whatever reason KM and JW have trouble wrapping their minds around concepts such as this. I suspect that they only ask so that they ca ...[text shortened]... e of years ago he made a vow to "discredit" me and the nutter is still at it.

But he's ever so charming , as are you.
I think I made the point before that you both try to 'look good' in the public (christian) forum .

Anyway, thnx for answering. I'm definately going to sit on the fence with this one.

If only there was a non-biased , well-versed in the bible, commentator who could sort this out...

Originally posted by karoly aczel
But he's ever so charming , as are you.
I think I made the point before that you both try to 'look good' in the public (christian) forum .

Anyway, thnx for answering. I'm definately going to sit on the fence with this one.

If only there was a non-biased , well-versed in the bible, commentator who could sort this out...

Well then, you've come to the right place. JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS!!

There now, don't you feel better? 😀

Originally posted by whodey
Well then, you've come to the right place. JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS!!

There now, don't you feel better? 😀

He didn't just die. He got brutally tortured along the way.
No. It doesn't make me feel better.
Sorry, dude. I don't think I'll ever get it.
edit: But yeah, you're the well versed in the bible commentator, are you? Who do you have as 'winning'? Knightmeister or ThinkofOne?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Hold on, first things first, isn't this the site you took the Augustine quote from?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm

Yes, I don't see what your point is though. As I have explained, different theories of the Redemption clearly reject the idea of appeasement (both Catholic and not Catholic.)

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, I don't see what your point is though. As I have explained, different theories of the Redemption clearly reject the idea of appeasement (both Catholic and not Catholic.)

At this point I'm just trying to figure out exactly what you are saying and whether or not it is coherent. This is made all the more difficult since it seems that much of your terminology does not adhere to dictionary definitions and you have not provided what all these words mean to you.

In an earlier post you said, "God is not angry or wrathful (except in the metaphorical sense employed by Scripture.) He does not need intercessors to placate Him. "

Yet from the same site you cited earlier we have this:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13407a.htm

We need not dwell upon the possibility of the salvation of mankind or upon its appropriateness. Nor need we remind the reader that after God had freely determined to save the human race, He might have done so by pardoning man's sins without having recourse to the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Still, the Incarnation of the Word was the most fitting means for the salvation of man, and was even necessary, in case God claimed full satisfaction for the injury done to him by sin (see INCARNATION). Though the office of Saviour is really one, it is virtually multiple: there must be an atonement for sin and damnation, an establishment of the truth so as to overcome human ignorance and error, a perennial source of spiritual strength aiding man in his struggle against darkness and concupiscence. There can be no doubt that Jesus Christ really fulfilled these three functions, that He therefore really saved mankind from sin and its consequences. As teacher He established the reign of truth; as king He supplied strength to His subjects; as priest He stood between heaven and earth, reconciling sinful man with his angry God.

Which says, "as priest He stood between heaven and earth, reconciling sinful man with his angry God".

Evidently whoever wrote this section of the Catholic Encyclopedia does not share the same views as you.

In the same post you also made this statement:
"ThinkOfOne has failed to offer a formula of the redemption which takes into account the variety of historical views on it."

Given the myriad flavors of Christianity is there such a thing? Are you looking for the impossible?

At this point, I gather that you have taken issue with what I've written, but I'm not sure what your issues are. I've already said that if you take exception to the word "appease" then substitute a word that you are comfortable with as it makes no difference to the underlying point. I've even asked you if there's a word you think fits better and you declined to state one. Yet you keep going back to saying that some theories reject "appeasement". Just what are you looking for?

Here's another site that speaks to the role of sacrifice in Judaism. For those who believe like jaywill who said, "The Old Testament said that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."

http://www.jewfaq.org/qorbanot.htm

...some would say that the original institution of sacrifice had more to do with the Judaism's past than with its future. Rambam suggested that the entire sacrificial cult in Judaism was ordained as an accommodation of man's primitive desires.
Sacrifice is an ancient and universal human expression of religion. Greeks and Romans and Canaanites and Egyptians all offered sacrifices to their gods. Sacrifice existed among the Hebrews long before the giving of the Torah. Cain and Abel offered sacrifices; Noah and his sons offered sacrifices, and so forth. When the laws of sacrifice were given to the Children of Israel in the Torah, the pre-existence of a system of sacrificial offering was understood, and sacrificial terminology was used without any explanation. The Torah, rather than creating the institution of sacrifice, carefully limited the practice, permitting it only in certain places, at certain times, in certain manners, by certain people, and for certain purposes. Rambam suggests that these limitations are designed to wean a primitive people away from the debased rites of their idolatrous neighbors.

This supports what I suspected. That Judaism had recognized the primitive nature of ritual blood sacrifice well before the time of Jesus and not only did not require "the shedding of blood" for atonement, but was moving away from it. The idea that "without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness" was an invention of Christianity made well after the death of Jesus. The idea of the shedding of the blood of Jesus as an atonement for all sins for all time was also an invention of Christianity made well after the death of Jesus. There's certainly no reason to believe that it originated with Jesus.

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 ...[text shortened]... a method of appeasement.

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

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

False dichotomy.

Blood atonement verses repentance is ThinkoFOne's false dichotomy.

This is what he is trying to pass out - "Because Jesus taught repentence, therefore this is verses His being the Redeemer Who shed His precious blood for the sinner's cleansing from sins."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
At this point I'm just trying to figure out exactly what you are saying and whether or not it is coherent. This is made all the more difficult since it seems that much of your terminology does not adhere to dictionary definitions and you have not provided what all these words mean to you.

In an earlier post you said, "God is not angry or wrathful (exc saying that some theories reject "appeasement". Just what are you looking for?

ThinkOfOne, I think things should be very clear.

1. I am not putting forward the Catholic position on Redemption. I have argued a very non-Catholic position which is very popular and which clearly demonstrates that appeasement is easily distinguished from redemption. If you want to argue the Catholic doctrine, then fine., but understand that is not what I intended

2. Dictionaries will list words of similar meaning. Anyone, however, who thinks that all these words are interchangeable is simply ignorant of how languages work. There are always nuances and writers are conscious of these to bring out precision. Just because reconciliation and appeasement are synonyms does not mean that they are identical. Definitely, reconciliation generally implies some sort of appeasement (although maybe not vice versa). but it needn't in all circumstances.

3. I don't dispute that the redemption entails atonement of sin, satisfaction and reparation. What I dispute is that these ideas entail appeasement. As I have said, God was always appeased. It makes no sense to argue that God sent His Son in a state of supreme displeasure.

Originally posted by Conrau K
ThinkOfOne, I think things should be very clear.

1. I am not putting forward the Catholic position on Redemption. In fact, I have argued a very non-Catholic position which is in fact very popular and which in fact clearly demonstrates that appeasement is easily distinguished from redemption. If you want to argue the Catholic doctrine, then fine. ...[text shortened]... s appeased. It makes no sense to argue that God sent His Son in a state of supreme displeasure.

You see, this is one of the main blunders ToO brings to any conversation. He doesn't realize the precision employed with doctrine and often makes conclusions based upon generalities derived from such fuzziness.

Unless and until such time as he comes to humble himself and become a student of the word instead of the supposed teacher he has made himself out to be, he will never understand the true message of the Gospel, grace, doctrine or the spiritual life.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==============================
Jesus taught repentance and to a lesser extent charity. Jesus did not teach blood sacrifice as a method of appeasement.
====================================

False dichotomy.

Blood atonement verses repentance is ThinkoFOne's false dichotomy.

This is what he is trying to pass out - "Becaus ...[text shortened]... es His being the Redeemer Who shed His precious blood for the sinner's cleansing from sins."[/b]

What matters is what the sacrifice represents:

For you do not desire sacrifice; a burnt offering you would not accept
My sacrifice, God, is a broken spirit; God, do not spurn a broken, humbled heart.
Psalms 51: 18-19

Do not neglect to do good and to share what you have; God is pleased by sacrifices of that kind.
Hebrews 13: 16

The sacrifice itself achieves nothing. It becomes efficacious in what it signifies. In the psalms, the burnt offering achieves nothing; the broken spirit, however, does; in Hebrews, which argues the ineffectiveness of all blood sacrifices, true sacrifices are acts of love and goodness. The redemption has to be framed around this. There is something very sacramental about it. There is nothing salvific about Jesus' blood except the grace that accompanies it. It was the love by which he allowed himself to suffer that was salvific. The suffering is only an outward sign.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Ummm...I'm not sure whether to ignore him or not yet...

I'm leaning toward you , at the moment, knightmeister, but I wonder what posts I've missed in the past?

He says your a stalker. I'm not going for that, but you do show up str8 after his posts...but it is a public forum...hmmm...
Anyway , its all entertaining and alls fare in love and war. Or is it?
edit:feel free to ignore this post. Its very childish...

The key thing to understand about the ToOne v KM thing is this. I am trying to being open and transparent about things and ToOne won't come forward and engage in honest debate. He wants to personalise things . I want to discuss matt 6:9 and matt 26:26 etc.

I have an inherent distaste for anyone who tries to use the words of Jesus and twist them in a disingenuous way for their own agenda. This is because I have seen how cults and sects work and snare people into fear by creating an atmosphere of judgement rather than acceptance. I have seen marriages broken up (that should not have been) due to this. People taken to the edge of nervous breakdowns because they think they are hellbound due to their sin. It's pretty damn ugly. So there you are , my cards are on the table now. The beauty of the Gospel is that at it's heart there is a message of love and forgiveness , not judgement.

So , yes , I do watch out for his posts and make sure that I challenge them wherever I can because his version of "Judgementiality" is dangerous. It's also worth bearing in mind that he seems to not actually believe in a Living God or Jesus' ressurection - which is fine and dandy accept that he is obsessed with Jesus and Christianity. This should make you suspicious of what's actually going on. He calls me a "nutter" but he is getting all hot and bothered about a religion he doesn't even believe in. He goes on about how Jesus says he will judge sin and reward righteousness etc , but does he really believe in the final judgement of Christ? If you asked him would he tell you?

If you look around you will see that many people here are asking valid questions that ToOne just refuses to address. And yet he castigates any who avoid his questions as if they are "avoiding". This is the problem I have always had with him - in that he won't reciprocate that which he expects of others. The only fair way of debating is to not ask others to think about what you are not prepared to consider yourself.

You could say I am stalking him if you want , and yes , I will admit that things got out of hand a long while back. But that's the difference you see , I wil admit that I made mistakes. I will also admit that some of his posts are worth thinking about and do create problems for those who subscribe to salvation by grace. But you won't see him admit much . He seems not to be able to. He wants things to stay personal and in the past because it deflects from the truth and the issues.

Ultimately , I don't want you to take sides. Simply make a judgement on what you see and think for yourself who is honestly engaging in give and take debate and who isn't. It's the truth that is important here not KM or ToONE.

I only suggest ignoring him because it might motivate him to answer some questions for a change. And then his version of truth can be put to the test. Afterall , he seems to be ignoring all the questions thrown his way.

Anyway , you're a grown up , you make your own mind up who is sane and who is not.

(ps - I would quite happily start an adjudicated thread debate between me and him with a fair "referee" of his choosing. I have offered this to him before - my guess is he would not accept such a thing - try offerig it and see what happens. Also watch the next weeks posts on a few threads and look out for the pattern I described)

Originally posted by knightmeister
The key thing to understand about the ToOne v KM thing is this. I am trying to being open and transparent about things and ToOne won't come forward and engage in honest debate. He wants to personalise things . I want to discuss matt 6:9 and matt 26:26 etc.

I have an inherent distaste for anyone who tries to use the words of Jesus and twist them i ...[text shortened]... ext weeks posts on a few threads and look out for the pattern I described)

Well I should think ThinkofOne should counter and perhaps explain why he would not take on such a challenge.
(I gotta split..but I wont be far away. Keep up the good work😉 )

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]==============================
Jesus taught repentance and to a lesser extent charity. Jesus did not teach blood sacrifice as a method of appeasement.
====================================

False dichotomy.

Blood atonement verses repentance is ThinkoFOne's false dichotomy.

This is what he is trying to pass out - "Becaus ...[text shortened]... es His being the Redeemer Who shed His precious blood for the sinner's cleansing from sins."[/b]

If I meant it as a dichotomy I would have presented it as one.

Why did you reword my statements to say something that they do not? Have you become such a disciple of KM where you're willing to completely distort what someone says in order to be able say something negative about it?

What a dishonest post jaywill. I don't recall you doing things like this before. I thought you were better than that. Maybe I was wrong.

Originally posted by Conrau K
ThinkOfOne, I think things should be very clear.

1. I am not putting forward the Catholic position on Redemption. I have argued a very non-Catholic position which is very popular and which clearly demonstrates that appeasement is easily distinguished from redemption. If you want to argue the Catholic doctrine, then fine., but understand that is n ...[text shortened]... appeased. It makes no sense to argue that God sent His Son in a state of supreme displeasure.

1. I am not putting forward the Catholic position on Redemption. I have argued a very non-Catholic position which is very popular and which clearly demonstrates that appeasement is easily distinguished from redemption. If you want to argue the Catholic doctrine, then fine., but understand that is not what I intended

I never said you did.

2. Dictionaries will list words of similar meaning. Anyone, however, who thinks that all these words are interchangeable is simply ignorant of how languages work. There are always nuances and writers are conscious of these to bring out precision. Just because reconciliation and appeasement are synonyms does not mean that they are identical. Definitely, reconciliation generally implies some sort of appeasement (although maybe not vice versa). but it needn't in all circumstances.

C'mon CK. I understand how dictionaries and languages work. But if you're trying to communicate something to someone and your meaning for words do not adhere to standard dictionary definitions then it is incumbent on YOU to provide the definitions that you intended.

3. I don't dispute that the redemption entails atonement of sin, satisfaction and reparation. What I dispute is that these ideas entail appeasement. As I have said, God was always appeased. It makes no sense to argue that God sent His Son in a state of supreme displeasure.


Why are you so hung up on the word "appeasement"? Like I keep telling you, if you don't like it, substitute some other word that you think is appropriate. It really makes no difference to the underlying point as I've explained. I don't know how to make this any clearer.

If you don't think it makes "sense to argue that God sent His Son in a state of supreme displeasure", that's fine too. Not all Christians agree with you as evidenced by that excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia which describes one of the functions of Jesus "as priest He stood between heaven and earth, reconciling sinful man with his angry God".