Why God isn't, can't become man?

SPOKENWORD

Well-known member
This has nothing to do with Jesus as human sacrifices were forbidden. You're being dishonest yet again.


Lev 17:12 doesn't say that at all.


False. As Jeremiah 33:16-26, Ezekiel 37-45, clearly show the sacrifices and Levitical Priesthood returning, and the prince sacrificing for himself.


This doesn't help you as the sacrifices if acceptable, were to be brought to the temple altar in Jerusalem. Taken from Tanakh. ;) So you admit he didn't fulfill the commandment.

BTW, Jesus depended on his parents for at least 3 commandments including circumcision, redemption, and consecration. He depended on their righteousness. ;)
HOW DO YOU ATONE FOR YOUR SINS TODAY SINCE ANIMAL SACRIFICES ARE NO LONGER SACRIFICED? JUST CURIOUS. DISREGUARD CAPITALS,NOT SCREAMING AT YOU BUT TO LAZY TO REWRITE.:)
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
HOW DO YOU ATONE FOR YOUR SINS TODAY SINCE ANIMAL SACRIFICES ARE NO LONGER SACRIFICED? JUST CURIOUS. DISREGUARD CAPITALS,NOT SCREAMING AT YOU BUT TO LAZY TO REWRITE.:)
Not all sins require blood atonement. Just like in Daniel's generation when there was no temple, prayer sufficed. Hosea 14:2 says the same thing.

How did Jesus atone for sins that require monetary payments? Blood alone doesn't work here.

Even an asham in Isaiah 53 doesn't cover all sins. ;)
 

SPOKENWORD

Well-known member
Not all sins require blood atonement. Just like in Daniel's generation when there was no temple, prayer sufficed. Hosea 14:2 says the same thing.

How did Jesus atone for sins that require monetary payments? Blood alone doesn't work here.

Even an asham in Isaiah 53 doesn't cover all sins. ;)
Jesus blood covers all sin. So how and what do you need to do to have your sins washed away. Just curious
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
If it means what you say it means, then the temple should never have been destroyed.
Just because the temple was destroyed doesn't mean sacrifices didn't provide atonement before.

If Lev 17:11 says what it means, then Jesus didn't follow the commandment for placing his sacrifice on the altar.
 

SPOKENWORD

Well-known member
Just because the temple was destroyed doesn't mean sacrifices didn't provide atonement before.

If Lev 17:11 says what it means, then Jesus didn't follow the commandment for placing his sacrifice on the altar.
So when did you return to blood sacrifices. Without the blood there is no atonement for sin.
 

radvermin

Active member
Just because the temple was destroyed doesn't mean sacrifices didn't provide atonement before.

If Lev 17:11 says what it means, then Jesus didn't follow the commandment for placing his sacrifice on the altar.
If it provided atonement then where's your temple? Where's the Ark of the Covenant?
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
Jesus blood washes all sins away. When you repent and confess your sins to Jesus and become born again you will understand it.
Well, we both know you're not born again, and your confession to the wrong god doesn't help.

Jesus' blood never made it to the altar. ;)
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
If it provided atonement then where's your temple? Where's the Ark of the Covenant?
First off, God chose the temple and sacrifices as means of worship and atonement. But if people weren't sincere in repentance, sacrifices didn't help. That's ultimately why the temple was destroyed. Though, we see the priests, temple, and sacrifices returning in Jeremiah 33:17-26, Ezekiel 37-45, with the prince sacrificing himself. God wouldn't allow this it didn't meet His desire.

As to the ark, no one really knows where it is.

I'll ask you a question, if Jesus' sacrifice was effectual, why isn't that people still die and sin?
 

radvermin

Active member
First off, God chose the temple and sacrifices as means of worship and atonement. But if people weren't sincere in repentance, sacrifices didn't help. That's ultimately why the temple was destroyed. Though, we see the priests, temple, and sacrifices returning in Jeremiah 33:17-26, Ezekiel 37-45, with the prince sacrificing himself. God wouldn't allow this it didn't meet His desire.
But is the blood of bulls and goats even required for atonement? You say that by itself it's not enough, but rather you need sincere repentance with it. But is that even enough because it doesn't have any effect for intentional sins. And even then it was to be done for a sin, not all sins meaning it's limited in effectiveness even further. It seems to me that it's no wonder that there is more of an emphasis on repentance without any sacrificing as atoning for sins, because the blood and bulls and goats can't take away sins.

But then your last sentence brings up the interesting question... why is it God's desire if it's not necessary as we see today?

I'll ask you a question, if Jesus' sacrifice was effectual, why isn't that people still die and sin?
Thanks for the question. I'd like to know where that question is coming from; in short, "Why do you ask?"
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
But is the blood of bulls and goats even required for atonement? You say that by itself it's not enough, but rather you need sincere repentance with it. But is that even enough because it doesn't have any effect for intentional sins. And even then it was to be done for a sin, not all sins meaning it's limited in effectiveness even further. It seems to me that it's no wonder that there is more of an emphasis on repentance without any sacrificing as atoning for sins, because the blood and bulls and goats can't take away sins.
But then your last sentence brings up the interesting question... why is it God's desire if it's not necessary as we see today?
It's God's desire for us to understand that true atonement requires true repentance. Not that sacrifices aren't needed anymore for certain sins.

Thanks for the question. I'd like to know where that question is coming from; in short, "Why do you ask?"
Why can't you answer? You're asking about the effectiveness of animal sacrifices, and yet fail to realize Jesus' death and sacrifice hasn't made things better.
 

radvermin

Active member
It's God's desire for us to understand that true atonement requires true repentance. Not that sacrifices aren't needed anymore for certain sins.
I don't see how you answered my question. In my head I'm separating God's desire that repentance is required for true atonement, and your statement that "God wouldn't allow [the return of sacrifices if sacrifices] didn't meet His desire", which I take to be referring to sacrifices specifically.
So, I'll reword in case I needed to be clearer. Why are sacrifices God's desire if they're not necessary as we see today? This isn't a "gotcha" question, as Christians have an answer to this and it would be an interesting contrast to hear what you have to say.

Why can't you answer? You're asking about the effectiveness of animal sacrifices, and yet fail to realize Jesus' death and sacrifice hasn't made things better.
Contrary to your assertion, I can answer. I just want to see if there was a point in answering.
You've said to me before, "I've heard it all before." So if you are asking a question, which I'm certain you've asked of other Christians in the past, and you've already been given an answer, and I've answered your questions before which you didn't seem to take them to heart, and it seems like your question demonstrates you haven't taken to heart any other Christians answers, there's no real point in answering your question.
If I've read you correctly (that you could make a few guesses as to how I could answer) I'm saving us both time and potential frustration.
 

Open Heart

Well-known member
Why are sacrifices God's desire if they're not necessary as we see today?
God often wants things that are good for us as humans, even though he himself has no need of anything. A sacrifice is simply a way to communally break bread with God. For humans, sitting down and sharing food with others is relationship building. So slaughtering, cooking, and eating in a ritual way builds our relationship with God. It's not the only way to build that relationship, but it's pretty cool.
 

Jewjitzu

Well-known member
I don't see how you answered my question. In my head I'm separating God's desire that repentance is required for true atonement, and your statement that "God wouldn't allow [the return of sacrifices if sacrifices] didn't meet His desire", which I take to be referring to sacrifices specifically.
God required sacrifices for certain sins. All of the commandments are God's desire. His desire is that we love Him with all our heart, soul, and might. That includes sacrifices when needed, and available.

So, I'll reword in case I needed to be clearer. Why are sacrifices God's desire if they're not necessary as we see today?
See above. The prayers of our lips act as sacrifices for now, Hosea 14:2.

This isn't a "gotcha" question, as Christians have an answer to this and it would be an interesting contrast to hear what you have to say.
Ok. You're gonna say Jesus' sacrifice eliminated the need for sacrifices even though he didn't follow the commandment to put blood on the altar, correct?

Contrary to your assertion, I can answer. I just want to see if there was a point in answering.
You've said to me before, "I've heard it all before." So if you are asking a question, which I'm certain you've asked of other Christians in the past, and you've already been given an answer, and I've answered your questions before which you didn't seem to take them to heart, and it seems like your question demonstrates you haven't taken to heart any other Christians answers, there's no real point in answering your question.
If I've read you correctly (that you could make a few guesses as to how I could answer) I'm saving us both time and potential frustration.
Then you know you have a gap in that human sacrifices were never commanded, and Jesus' blood and sacrifice didn't align with the commandments.
 
Top