Blood Sacrifice?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you have something to say, just plainly state it.

If you have something to say, just plainly state it.
----------ToOne---------------------------------

Unbelievable!

The ToOne hypocrisy knows no bounds. You have been asked many times to "plainly state" what you actually believe.

Surely even you can see the contradiction......? (actually no , I take that back )

I'm growing more convinced that actually you do know you are being hypocritical and you just don't care. Are you actually a high school project of some kind? Maybe there are 2 ToOnes and neither of them know what the other one is saying?

Originally posted by knightmeister
If you have something to say, just plainly state it.
----------ToOne---------------------------------

Unbelievable!

The ToOne hypocrisy knows no bounds. You have been asked many times to "plainly state" what you actually believe.

Surely even you can see the contradiction......? (actually no , I take that back )

I'm growing more convinc some kind? Maybe there are 2 ToOnes and neither of them know what the other one is saying?

There is no hypocrisy.

Instead of stating his position, whodey has been asking me questions. So I asked him to plainly state his position instead.

I've refused to answer certain questions because they are irrelevant.

I'm thinking even you should be able to discern the difference between these two scenarios.

Just another one of your usual false accusations. Seems like almost all your posts contain at least one and many contain several. Don't you ever tire of being so dishonest? You are easily one of the most dishonest people I've ever come across.

Are you back to stalking pretty much every post I make?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
There is no hypocrisy.

Instead of stating his position, whodey has been asking me questions. So I asked him to plainly state his position instead.

I've refused to answer certain questions because they are irrelevant.

I'm thinking even you should be able to discern the difference between these two scenarios.

Just another one of your usual false ...[text shortened]... est people I've ever come across.

Are you back to stalking pretty much every post I make?

I've refused to answer certain questions because they are irrelevant.
-------ToOne------------------

But don't you get it? That's not for you to decide!!!

They are obviously not irrelevant to Whodey.

If you just pick and choose which questions you answer it is just way too easy. Have you never considered that you might be using the "irrelevant" card to deflect questions you don't WANT to answer?

What if whodey decides your questions are "irrelevant"? What then?

You would no doubt accuse him of evading the issue or being a child. As usual it's one rule for TinkofOne and another rule for the rest of us.

Just put your hubris and presumptions aside and honestly answer a question for a change , and then see what happens. You won't die , I promise.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I've refused to answer certain questions because they are irrelevant.
-------ToOne------------------

But don't you get it? That's not for you to decide!!!

They are obviously not irrelevant to Whodey.

If you just pick and choose which questions you answer it is just way too easy. Have you never considered that you might be using the "irreleva answer a question for a change , and then see what happens. You won't die , I promise.

Your accusation of hypocrisy was false as I showed above. It is just one of countless attempts to deceive in your part. You have a long track record of making false accusations, telling half-truth, telling outright lies, etc.

Why don't you just admit it to yourself?

The truth will make you free.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Your accusation of hypocrisy was false as I showed above. It is just one of countless attempts to deceive in your part. You have a long track record of making false accusations, telling half-truth, telling outright lies, etc.

Why don't you just admit it to yourself?

The truth will make you free.

I call you a hypocrite because you expect others to answer your questions and "plainly state " what they believe but at the same time you refuse to answer questions (labelling them as "irrelevant" ) and don't plainly state what you believe.

It can't get much clearer that that can it. The evidence is there for all to see.

If you have a similar charge to make to me then stop messing about and just plainly state it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I call you a hypocrite because you expect others to answer your questions and "plainly state " what they believe but at the same time you refuse to answer questions (labelling them as "irrelevant" ) and don't plainly state what you believe.

It can't get much clearer that that can it. The evidence is there for all to see.

If you have a similar charge to make to me then stop messing about and just plainly state it.

If anyone is truly interested, they'll see that you continue to distort, deceive, tell half-truths and outright lies in order to disparage in carrying out your long standing vendetta.

What is clear is that you have absolute no regard for truth.

You lie because at heart you are a liar.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If anyone is truly interested, they'll see that you continue to distort, deceive, tell half-truths and outright lies in order to disparage in carrying out your long standing vendetta.

What is clear is that you have absolute no regard for truth.

You lie because at heart you are a liar.

What you call a "vendetta" or "stalking" is simply a robust defence of my beliefs. You attack others beliefs and then cry foul when they defend their faith? It's you that is stalking Christianity.

Ever read the story of the dog in the manger?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Just to be more clear, I am not looking for a "complete" explanation, although that would be ideal. A good starting point or first pass would be some reasons that make it at least marginally plausible that bringing about the blood sacrifice of an innocent could be a path to restitutive justice or moral balance (or would have anything at all to do with ci ...[text shortened]... ttle doubt your faith is strong, given your willingness to humor such bizarro notions.

====================================
Just to be more clear, I am not looking for a "complete" explanation, although that would be ideal.
====================================

When you say I have not explained it very well, you have good point. I don't think I have either. But I keep trying.

A picture is worth 1,000 words. And in the picture of the Passover Lamb in Exodus the blood was placed on the outside of the house. It was primarily something for God to see. It seems not primarily for the people who benefitted from it to see but for God to see.

Probably only God knows the ultimate worth to Him of what Christ has done in dying for sinners. We sinners know its releasing power and its blessed effect. But the real value of His death is only known fully to God.

You're right. It is very hard for me to explain. I don't fully understand myself.

===============================================
A good starting point or first pass would be some reasons that make it at least marginally plausible that bringing about the blood sacrifice of an innocent could be a path to restitutive justice or moral balance (or would have anything at all to do with circumstances that conduce to such things).
=======================================

I hope you find your answer if not from my poor words. But I do believe it is more than a matter of Christ's "innocence" which is in play here.

Somehow, it must occur to us that there is such a thing as unrighteous forgiveness. It does not occur to some people that one could forgive someone and that would be unrighteous forgiveness.

When Jesus prayed on the cross - "Father, forgive them ..." it must be that the Father could only righteously answer that prayer by making the Son's death the basis for our being forgiven. Perhaps for God to forgive the world for its murder of the Son of God is unrighteous forgiveness. He could only forgive by making the Son's act a condition of forgiveness. If we BELIEVE into Christ, His act will cause God to answer the Son's prayer for our forgiveness righteously.

From our perspective it seems like free forgiveness. From God's perspective there is no such thing. A price only fully known to God Himself secures our being forgiven.

If you come back saying "jaywill you have not explained the blood sacrifice very well" I would have to respond, "You're right." I'm not sure that eternity will be enough time for me to comprehend and explain this matter fully.

But I don't think it is simply a matter of the innocence of Jesus. God made Him to be sin who knew no sin, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

==================================
Failing this, the doctrine of the scapegoat itself doesn't merit much attention. And here I mean to refer to substantive reasons, not vacuous sound bites like "The life is in the blood" or vacuous observations from within your doctrine's claim itself like "God in Christ has incurred the loss within Himself of our sins.
====================================

You trivialize the matter at your own expense. Holding the matter of Christ's death in contempt as you seem to do, I don't think will help you.

I would start with thanksgiving to God rather than trivializing with contempt with words like "sound bite". Jesus said Heavn and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away. So what Jesus has said about the new covenant in His blood is not trivial. It may be very hard to understand. But it is not trivial.

It is significant enough that He said its truth would outlast the physical universe.


==============================================
I said"

And the redeeming blood of God incarnate must be a emphatic way God drives this point home to His creation."

You keep saying things that boil down to the idea that, well you know, this just must be how God wanted it; or this just must be how it works. Yes, I already know the doctrine claims that this is how it works. What I am asking for are reasons that shed any sort of plausibility on a main assumption here -- that such a thing as the blood sacrifice of an innocent can conduce to justice.
======================================

Once again, I do not think it is simply a matter of Christ's innocence.

An embalance has come into existence because of man's sins. To restore balance costs something to God. The cost was very great. He wants to forgive. He is eager to forgive. But He will not forgive in a way which does not correspond to His righteous nature.

We would like to be saved any old way. The procedure doesn't matter as long as we get saved. Like a thief who wants money. He does not care how he gets it as long as he gets it.

We want to know why God could not just say "Forget about your sins. I know you didn't mean it."

Somehow, God intends to drive home that our salvation is not a sloppy unrighteous matter. It cost God to save us. The value of that cost is incalculable to man but only fully known by God. And it is wrapped up in the Son of God life, in the shedding of His blood to become sin on our behalf.

God has exhausted His power to secure the sinner's forgiveness. It is impossible for the believer in Christ to not be saved. I really don't think there are three parties involved here - one party - God, a second party - man, and a third innocent party the Son of God Jesus.

I think there are only two parties here - God and man. God has somehow embraced the judgment due the sinner into Himself.

I furthermore do not think this is a system invented out of the human imagination.

=======================
I understand that even if we were to fail there in our search for those reasons; and even if the doctrine simply failed to be comprehensible to us (recall: you basically already conceded that you think these matters can only really be comprehended by God);
==============================

That is right. In Revelation it says that Jesus has a name written known only to Himself.

There are a number of blessed things in this universe which we cannot explain very well, yet we cannot live without them.

========================================
you still take it to be that we have other good reasons to accept it because you take it to be part of God's word and you take the word to be authoritative and characteristically reliable. We'll have to just disagree there for now, I suppose. I have little doubt your faith is strong, given your willingness to humor such bizarro notions.
=======================================

It may seem bizarro. One thing I know. When I believed into Jesus Christ God became real to me and I had peace with God.

I didn't know very much about redemption or the blood of Jesus. Latter as I began to read the bible and fellowship I learned more.

I know that there is a book on your life. It is a record of all your deeds. There are no additions or deletions to it. It is an infallible record of your life. One day that book will be opened and God will say "This is exactly what you said. This is exactly what you did." . That is an infallible and undesputable record of your life.

The Bible says that God has a way that the judgment that is due you fell on Jesus on His cross at Calvary. I know that you will never have peace in your conscience before God without the blood of Jesus and the indwelling Holy Spirit. You will always be restless and unsure. So you need Jesus.

I don't mind you scolding poor me for not being too good to explain the meaning of the blood of Jesus to you. But you need that redemptive work of Jesus whether you understand it or not.

Maybe one day you can explain it to me. But I know that the Holy Spirit will bear witness in my heart whether you are speaking the truth or not.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
Just to be more clear, I am not looking for a "complete" explanation, although that would be ideal.
====================================

When you say I have not explained it very well, you have good point. I don't think I have either. But I keep trying.

A picture is worth 1,000 words. And in the ...[text shortened]... y heart whether you are speaking the truth or not.[/b]

Again, I was looking for discussion regarding reasons that would serve to shed plausibility on the doctrine of the scapegoat. You have none to offer, and your question-begging sermonizing doesn't help either. But, you have been quite candid. So, I do applaud your frankness in that respect.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Again, I was looking for discussion regarding reasons that would serve to shed plausibility on the doctrine of the scapegoat. You have none to offer, and your question-begging sermonizing doesn't help either. But, you have been quite candid. So, I do applaud your frankness in that respect.

"Sermonizing" is usually the reserved word skeptics use for the discribing of hearing something they don't want to listen to.

Don't think that I am pursuaded by you that I have nothing to offer concerning the subject.

For one who has eyewitnessed a number of people become regenerated Christians in the course of my speaking with them, I don't require your stamp of approval. And I don't need your patronizing either.

I only acknowledge that there is "the mystery of the faith" which is not easy to state fully.

I am encouraged to continue to speak with others on the subject, absolutely, if not with you.

Originally posted by jaywill
"Sermonizing" is usually the reserved word skeptics use for the discribing of hearing something they don't want to listen to.

Don't think that I am pursuaded by you that I have nothing to offer concerning the subject.

For one who has eyewitnessed a number of people become regenerated Christians in the course of my speaking with them, I don't re ...[text shortened]... ged to [b]continue to speak with others on the subject, absolutely, if not with you.[/b]

When I ask for evidential reasons and you give me an earful of how you think I need the blood of Jesus whether I have the reasons I asked for or not, of course I don't want to listen to that. It's neither helpful nor relevant to my inquiry. That's why 'sermonizing' here takes on a pejorative sense.

At any rate, where you weren't sermonizing you were candid. Again, I appreciate that.

Originally posted by LemonJello
When I ask for evidential reasons and you give me an earful of how you think I need the blood of Jesus whether I have the reasons I asked for or not, of course I don't want to listen to that. It's neither helpful nor relevant to my inquiry. That's why 'sermonizing' here takes on a pejorative sense.

At any rate, where you weren't sermonizing you were candid. Again, I appreciate that.

In other words you think the only purpose of the word of God is to provide some stimulation to your intellectual curiosity.

Take up Scrabble.

Originally posted by jaywill
In other words you think the only purpose of the word of God is to provide some stimulation to your intellectual curiosity.

Take up Scrabble.

No. In other words, I'm not interested in your sermonizing here, particularly when it is neither helpful nor relevant with respect to my inquiry at hand.

Originally posted by LemonJello
No. In other words, I'm not interested in your sermonizing here, particularly when it is neither helpful nor relevant with respect to my inquiry at hand.

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.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Thanks for the clarification. So you think that justice necessitates payment for our transgressions.

And you think that the blood sacrifice of an innocent can cash in for us in that respect and make the payment for us.

So, you think the suffering and "blood sacrifice" of an innocent lends itself to cosmic justice. Same thing holds: I think that is a bizarre take on justice.

(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 That Disappears.” According to another derivation, based on the belief that there has been a transposition of two consonants, it means “Strength of God.” The Latin Vulgate renders the Hebrew word as capro emissario, that is, “the emissary goat,” or “the scapegoat.” And the Greek expression used in the Septuagint means “the one carrying away (averting) evil.”

Two goats (male kids) were obtained from the assembly of the sons of Israel by the high priest for use on the annual Day of Atonement. By the casting of lots, one goat was designated “for Jehovah,” and the other “for Azazel.” After a bull had been sacrificed for the high priest and his household (doubtless including all the Levites), the goat for Jehovah was sacrificed as a sin offering. However, the goat for Azazel was preserved alive for a time “before Jehovah to make atonement for it, so as to send it away for Azazel into the wilderness.” (Le 16:5, 7-10) Atonement for this live goat issued from the blood of the goat for Jehovah, which had just been killed as a sin offering, the life of the flesh being in the blood. (Le 17:11) The blood value, or life value, of the slain goat was thus transferred to the live goat, or the goat for Azazel. Thus, though it was not killed by the priest, this live goat bore upon it a sin-atoning merit or a value of life. The fact that it was presented before Jehovah evidently indicates that he recognized this transfer of merit or sin-atoning power. A correspondency with this was the prescribed manner of cleansing an Israelite who was healed of leprosy, or of cleansing a house healed of that plague. In this case a living bird was dipped in the blood of a bird that had been killed. The living bird was then permitted to fly away, carrying away sin.—Le 14:1-8, 49-53.

Both goats were to be unblemished, sound, and as much alike as possible. Before the casting of lots over them, both goats stood the chance of being selected as the goat for Jehovah. After sacrificing the goat for Jehovah, the high priest laid his hands upon the head of the living goat and confessed the sins of the people over it. This goat was then sent away, being taken into the wilderness by “a ready man.” (Le 16:20-22) The goat for Azazel thus symbolically carried off the people’s sins of the past year, disappearing with them into the wilderness.

The two goats were referred to as one sin offering. (Le 16:5) Two were used apparently to add emphasis to what was accomplished by this provision to atone for the sins of the people. The first goat was sacrificed. The second, having the sins of the people confessed over it and being sent far away into the wilderness, added force to the forgiveness that Jehovah grants to repentant ones. Psalm 103:12 gives the assurance: “As far off as the sunrise is from the sunset, so far off from us he has put our transgressions.”

As the apostle Paul explained, by Jesus’ offering of his own perfect human life as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, he accomplished far more than had been achieved by “the blood of bulls and of goats.” (Heb 10:4, 11, 12) He thus served as “the scapegoat,” being the ‘carrier of our sicknesses,’ the one “pierced for our transgression.” (Isa 53:4, 5; Mt 8:17; 1Pe 2:24) He ‘carried away’ the sins of all who exercise faith in the value of his sacrifice. He demonstrated the provision of God to take sinfulness into complete oblivion. In these ways the goat “for Azazel” pictures the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.