| Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR |
| brainout |
Point of the Cross, Part II -- What God does with itOk, presuming that the point of the Cross Part I was to pay for sin, now what? Well, part of the cost was the RESTITUTION -- which now gets spent on anyone who believes in Christ.What's that? Well, you have to be made as GOOD AS GOD IS. Would you want to live with a baby forever? Sure, babies are cute but there's only so much rapport you can have with a baby. Drooling, changing diapers, the new baby smell -- yeah, and what do you do for adult conversation? The price of sin is Righteousness Foregone. Divine, Infinite Righteousness. So that's what got paid. Hence 2 Corinthians 5:21, now you get the Righteousness of God. Now John 3:16 and John 10:28, you get Eternal life. All this goes into a human spirit you also get at the spiritual birth (that first nanosecond you believed in Christ), Titus 3:5. The whole thing is a CONTRACT, Isaiah 53:10-11, idea of birthing children from the imputation and judgement of sin on the Cross. That's the Bible's story. Not saying you should believe it, just saying what it is. As you can see, if you get God's Own Attributes in Exchange, you can't lose salvation, and the Greek verbs (along with the Hebrew in verses like Genesis 15:6) tell you that. It's a CHANGE OF NATURE -- to GOD's Own Level. For Rapport must be at His Level, or what's the point. Point of the Cross II, then, is FULL Relationship. Life post-salvation is therefore a spiritual, private thing, learning how to think as God does with your new spiritual life. That's why you get a Book, aka Bible, to learn that Thinking, and a teacher God 'matches' to you -- a personal gift, person-to-person matching, so it's not of some specific 'Christian' denomination. So then you grow in the relationship, vertically, toward Him. Ok, that should be enough information to start the topic. Let the debate begin! |
||||||||
| All_Brains |
Once again, the payment, the compensation, Salvation are all made up!
This plot does not make sense. I will ask again, which sin was paid for on the cross? |
||||||||
| brainout |
Isaiah 53:10 says in Hebrew, "im tasim asham naph'sho" -- "asham" means substitute offering, especially red heifer. It symbolizes ALL sin being paid for. That's repeated a lot in the NT.
"Compensation" is actually not what happens. Gifting is what happens. "Compensation" is just language of accommodation. Again, the contract is (now translated), "if He will APPOINT HIS SOUL AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR SIN" -- that's the actual deal. The Greek text of 53:10-11 goes into more detail on it. It's a contract, if-then. So it's an exchange, which is what 2 Corinthians 5:21 says. Christ, in exchange for our sins. So we become the Righteousness of God in Him. Now you can't compare sins to Righteousness. Strictly speaking, that's not compensation, it's totally disproportionate. But it is a Gift Christ makes to Father, of Himself, and Father AGREED to those terms, so justifies making us righteous, "bedato yatsdiq, tsadiq av'di l'rabbim" in Isaiah 53:11's Hebrew. It's a contract. The whole chapter is exegeted and translated in http://www.geocities.com/brainout1/Isa53trans.htm if you feel like examining any of the details. I did three translations there, depending on the reader's taste. My favorite is the last (poetic) one, where I tried to ape the Hebrew meter in English. If someone buys a car for you, it's still your car after it's gifted to you. If you needed the car but couldn't pay for it, but you get it anyway, you can't call that "compensation": it's a "Gift", just as Romans 5 explains. God doesn't need a car. But God loves. Now what can God do for God, but give Himself? Just because. You can make a sandwich. I can make a sandwich. You don't need me to make you a sandwich, you can do it yourself. But if I do it for you, that's a gift (well, assuming it's a really good sandwich). Same idea, but at God's level. So "Gift" is the proper word, and "compensation" is the juridical pronouncement on it. Does this help? Should I say more? |
||||||||
| BMZ |
The plot does not make sense because the man, at the centre of the plot, did not say anything or talk about paying for any kind of sin or offering compensation. The theory of sin was spun along with other theories, like Trinity, Hypostatic Union and Incarnation which turned into doctrines, long after he was gone. The plot thickens. BMZ |
||||||||
| They call me Tater Salad |
What? So the Jews killed an umblemished animal at the Temple every year for what purpose --bloodlust? 
Oh yeah, I forgot. Just say it's all Paul's fault. 
|
||||||||
| All_Brains |
Can you please advise us why did the Jews do that then?? |
||||||||
| They call me Tater Salad |
Sorry for the outburst--spending too much time on the defensive elsewhere. 
The sacrifices were done yearly for the remission of sins. They don't do the sacrifices anymore since there's no Temple, although they are still under the Deutronomic Laws. So technically, they aren't forgiven by God. *Edited to point out that the above isn't a value judgement, just a statement of theology. Muslims do a sacrifice at Eid too, but they say it's representing the substitute goat that Abraham sacrificed instead of Ishmael--forgetting what the sacrificial system was really about. |
||||||||
| All_Brains |
So how all these three Gods (Yahweh, Jesus and Allah) are any better than a primitive pagan God who requires sacrifices in order to be please and forgive????? |
||||||||
| They call me Tater Salad |
Well I guess first, no HUMAN sacrifices were required. Also, I suppose that the sacrifices to pagan Gods werein order to appease the gods, not in order to absolve mankind of any wrongdoing. While it was a very important, central doctrine of Judaism, sacrifices weren't the only way to gain forgiveness. Like in Islam, one could ask directly and recieve forgiveness from God. But the sacrificial system was put in place for absolution of unknown bad deeds. It "covered" sins for a year, much like the Catholic Church would sell indulgences in the Middle Ages. It's interesting to see how this system is set up by God when you look at it from the perspective of the New Testament, because once Jesus is slain as the ultimate sacrifice, the Temple is destroyed and the Jews no longer can get their unknown sins absolved--EXCEPT by accepting the sacrifice Jesus gave. Many theologians will suggest that it wasn't God who implemented the sacrificial system (for forgiveness) at all, but that it was all part of the foreshadowing of Jesus's sacrifice. There's also some suggestion in the OT that God isn't really pleased with blood sacrifices--but allows them (not commands them). So only certain animals are allowed, and the animals are cooked and eaten, etc. Here's an interesting look at the Jewish sacrificial system throughout the OT. Very informative, and you might see where YhWh is different than the other gods who expected sacrifices: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/msacrifice.html |
||||||||
| Mutley |
Well, from the Christian POV, it was a physical manifestation of God that was sacrificed. However, I have a rather odd view of Jesus being God. When one is sinless and perfect, one no longer does any actions themselves, but rather God does his actions through them, and therefore they are the physical manifestation of God, because God is acting through them. Their idea of self has sufficiently disappeared and they become a conduit. I believe that Jesus was the only man that could and has achieved this, and perhaps it relates to the immaculate conception, where he escapes original sin. There is a totally bizarre concept that I read where it talks about the Biblical concept that says that says that good things happen to those who love God, and the author explained that what this really means is that good things, in your terms, are not what it means, but rather, it means that when you truly love God, everything and anything that happens to you is good, because it has to be, because you love God rather than judge God. Aaaaa..Why did I even bother? I guess I'm just bored. I gotta find a better hobby.
|
||||||||
| brainout |
The point of the Levitical sacrifices was to CELEBRATE the future Messiah who would come to pay for sins. Each type of animal meant something different in that doctrine. Lambs were the most frequent mnemonic sacrifice, to highlight purity and innocence. Oxen demonstrated fealty despite burden, ram demonstrated leadership, etc. It was NEVER about man paying anything. It was dinner. That's why you usually ate some of the offering, and the priest of course always got his meals that way.
Fellowship, the dining. It was never about man appeasing God, but about God rescuing man. So all the NT does is explain how that Messiah actually did pay, and what is the effect, now that the OLD Testament is fulfilled (hence the term "new Testament", term used in Book of Hebrews, tying back to that very promise made since Jeremiah 31:31-34). |
||||||||