blood sacrifice

[bluetuesday]

i appreciate everyone's responses, thank you.

 

what i am actually questioning, and it's a technical point which our guest correctly points out is to do with logic, is that regardless of the nature of sacrifice, the meaning of sacrifice to ancient jews, the word sacrifice, whether sacrifice was perfect, or bloody, or ANYTHING else to do with sacrifice in its context THEN, the christian church teaches NOW that jesus was sacrificed to take away the sins of the world and as a necessary way to reunite man and god.

 

it further teaches that in order to receive eternal life, you must accept that jesus sacrificed his life for yours.

 

which makes jesus' sacrifice an OUTER condition to our personal salvation since we cannot be saved without accepting that something outside ourselves can save us.

 

my entire point is that jesus spent his whole mission telling people, many of whom were experts at following the outer law, that they would NEVER be saved by following ANY outer observance. that they needed to change their hearts. that they needed to live as he lived, in divine love and forgiveness and compassion.

 

so i see a fundamental contradition in what he is reported to have said, and the meaning that's reported behind his death on the cross. i wonder what he would think about having given his life for a teaching that says you cannot be saved through outer observance of the law, only to find the church telling people that ONLY through an outer observance of claiming him as your savior can you be saved.

 

call it nitpicking if you like. it is important to me that i find as much truth as i can. it is important to me that i don't follow what the world tells me to believe without using the brain god gave me to find out the answers for myself. so i am simply asking if anyone else can see this as a contradiction, and if they can, what they think about it.

 

if they can't, that is fine. and thank you, guest, for saying you don't have an answer and you don't need one. that is a valid answer to my question and i thank you for it.

[blind_otter]

i appreciate everyone's responses, thank you.

 

what i am actually questioning, and it's a technical point which our guest correctly points out is to do with logic, is that regardless of the nature of sacrifice, the meaning of sacrifice to ancient jews, the word sacrifice, whether sacrifice was perfect, or bloody, or ANYTHING else to do with sacrifice in its context THEN, the christian church teaches NOW that jesus was sacrificed to take away the sins of the world and as a necessary way to reunite man and god.

 

it further teaches that in order to receive eternal life, you must accept that jesus sacrificed his life for yours.

 

which makes jesus' sacrifice an OUTER condition to our personal salvation since we cannot be saved without accepting that something outside ourselves can save us.

 

Well there is a big difference between the dogma of the church (which changes depending on the sect you are examining) and the teachings of Christ.

 

I'm just saying.

 

Making sense of the blood sacrifice is something that was done through hindsight. I always thought that, because it was his choice, his example was that for everyone, the ultimate sacrifice is the death of ego. To give yourself up to a greater cause for the benefit of others.

 

But I also tend to think that you can't really make sense of something that is not logically based. Logic is a tool of man, after all.

[Moose]

I get what you're saying BT.

so i see a fundamental contradition in what he is reported to have said, and the meaning that's reported behind his death on the cross. i wonder what he would think about having given his life for a teaching that says you cannot be saved through outer observance of the law, only to find the church telling people that ONLY through an outer observance of claiming him as your savior can you be saved.

Do you see what you're saying here? You're correct in assuming that outer observances will not save you. Those are, "works". Only through faith in Christ will you be saved. That doesn't take any physical effort whatsoever. It's more of a heart attitude.

 

Because of Jesus' death, we are no longer bound by the laws of sacrifice. If we were, then Jesus would have to come back in human form and be crucified over, and over, and over again.

 

So you see, we aren't partaking in an outside observance of a law that no longer exists.

 

We are simply acknowledging that since Jesus is/was the ULTIMATE sacrifice, that it is no longer required for us to do so. The law has been fulfilled and all sin has been forgiven to those who place their faith in Christ.

[blind_otter]

Yes Moose makes a point that I couldn't, and makes it eloquently.

 

I thought the teachings indicated that Jesus' sacrifice was the last one, to take the place of the previously used blood sacrifices so that we would no longer have to observe that tradition?

[Guest]

i appreciate everyone's responses, thank you.

 

what i am actually questioning, and it's a technical point which our guest correctly points out is to do with logic, is that regardless of the nature of sacrifice, the meaning of sacrifice to ancient Jews, the word sacrifice, whether sacrifice was perfect, or bloody, or ANYTHING else to do with sacrifice in its context THEN, the Christian church teaches NOW that Jesus was sacrificed to take away the sins of the world and as a necessary way to reunite man and god.

 

But this is not a new teaching. It harks back to the time when sacrifice in all its meanings was very important symbolically. Which is why the context THEN is still important.

 

Think slavery. In context, in its time (i.e. before people were smart enough to know better) it made sense. It's even in the Bible. You can't apply today's conclusions to yesterday. You have to look at the happenings of yesterday with yesterday's eyes.

my entire point is that Jesus spent his whole mission telling people, many of whom were experts at following the outer law, that they would NEVER be saved by following ANY outer observance. that they needed to change their hearts. that they needed to live as he lived, in divine love and forgiveness and compassion

.

 

There's no logic here. You have conveniently (but inaccurately) swept everything on the planet into your (false) dichotomy of 'inner' and 'outer' law, claimed that Jesus taught that only 'inner' law counted, and then ask why He obeyed an 'outer' law. There's so many flaws in this construct it would take an hour to type a response.

 

so i see a fundamental contradiction in what he is reported to have said, and the meaning that's reported behind his death on the cross. i wonder what he would think about having given his life for a teaching that says you cannot be saved through outer observance of the law, only to find the church telling people that ONLY through an outer observance of claiming him as your savior can you be saved.

 

You misstate the message of JC.

You slot things in to 'inner' and 'outer' arbitrarily based on some sort of criteria you have constructed which just doesn't scan logically. Any person could just as easily say that His death was 'inner' since it was his predestined fate long before any of the men who condemned him to death were born. Or that He, being One with the Father, did the will of himself. And so on.

Plus, you're taking the 'faith, not works' theory that only some 'Christian' denominations preach and saying Jesus died for that. There a few hundred holes in how you're constructing your case.

 

BT, you can't discuss logic except through logic. Which means that your assumptions, premise, and representation of fact must be sound. So far, the case just doesn't measure up.

 

anyone else can see this as a contradiction, and if they can, what they think about it.

 

No. It's a false dichotomy; a straw man.

[bluetuesday]

thank you again to the members who responded with the good intention of helping me, and indeed to the guest who responded with her own intention of proving me on the road to insanity.

 

both types of response contain a very useful lesson for me, not limited to the matter under discussion, and i genuinely thank you for them.

[lonelybird]

This is my personal understanding:)

I think Jesus was crucified not for God needs, but he did this for us. God wanted show us a perfect example, show us to love not to hate. and the ones who love can enter heaven as Jesus said "I am the way". The people who crucified Jesus were ones who possess hatred, but Jesus forgave them by love. maybe God want to show us even in a world full of hatred, even under the authority of hatred, under the threat of death we should insist to stay in love, not use hatred to against hatred. after all Love conquer all, that why we can live in a better world than before.