Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, God didn't write anything. But if you take the words of Hosea and Matthew at face value, why do you not take the words of Leviticus at face value?
Leviticus starts out "And the Lord called Moses, and spoke to him..." and then goes on to describe all of the different sacrifices God is commanding to Moses.
To say that God did not require blood sacrifice, you are not taking the opening words of Leviticus at face value.
How do you interpret the opening chapters of Leviticus?
I don't view the Scriptures as being inerrant of infallible, neither do I blindly accept what others believe.
No, God didn't write anything. But if you take the words of Hosea and Matthew at face value, why do you not take the words of Leviticus at face value?
Leviticus starts out "And the Lord called Moses, and spoke to him..." and then goes on to describe all of the different sacrifices God is commanding to Moses.
To say that God did not require blood sacrifice, you are not taking the opening words of Leviticus at face value.
How do you interpret the opening chapters of Leviticus?
As instructions about how to motivate a savage to develop self-control out of a fear of God and damnation.
Fair enough, but on what grounds then can you be so assured and insistent that "he did not require, desire or command a (blood) sacrifice?"
You will not find a single answer to that question. However, do you consider (putting common sense aside) taking the life of an innocent person for that of the guilty as something morally acceptable, especially given your emphasis on morality in other parts of this forum? Also consider the history of religion and the Church itself, along with studying the Scriptures in their entirety, while knowing the nature of man, WHO has made GOD in their own image. It was MAN who needed the sacrifices, not GOD. I could go on, but we leave it here for the moment.
You will not find a single answer to that question. However, do you consider (putting common sense aside) taking the life of an innocent person for that of the guilty as something morally acceptable, especially given your emphasis on morality in other parts of this forum?
Absolutely not! As I’ve stated many times before, penal substitution is a heresy.
I was specifically asking the question of you though; trying to get your unique perspective and wondering on what grounds you personally feel that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
Also consider the history of religion and the Church itself, along with studying the Scriptures in their entirety, while knowing the nature of man, WHO has made GOD in their own image. It was MAN who needed the sacrifices, not GOD. I could go on, but we leave it here for the moment.
I agree that sacrifice is offered to God for the benefit of man. Offering sacrifice is good for us and is an act of justice, as God is deserving of all. God needs nothing. What a gift that God offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice, acting as both Priest and Victim, for our benefit when He was under no obligation to do so!
Of course it is foolishness to you....because it has to do with the preaching of the Cross.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
