Ransom to Whom?

Yahda

Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
711
No, He didn't . He said He would rather we obey.. like most parents would rather their children just obey in the first place. That's common sense-- why instruct the proper way to penance, in such detail, if it didn't matter?
He didn’t ???


Jeremiah 7:22 For when I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt I did not speak with them concerning burnt offerings or a sacrifice, BUT I did command them to OBEY me, and to obey my voice. I will be your God and you shall be my people and walk in all the ways I commanded you so that it may go well with you.

1st Samuel 15:22 Does The Lord our God take as much pleasure in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in OBEYING His voice ? Look! To OBEY is BETTER than a sacrifice.

Psalms 51:16 For in sacrifice you did not delight- otherwise I would give it to you. You do not find delight in whole burnt offerings.

Psalms 69:30 I will sing praises to the name of God and I will magnify him with thanksgiving this will please Him more than a bull.

Psalms 50:8 I did not reprove you because of your sacrifices, nor because of your whole burnt offerings that are constantly before me

I do not need to take a bull from your house, nor goats from your pens

For every wild animal of the forest is mines If I was hungry I would not tell you !!

FOR THE PRODUCTIVE LAND AND EVERYTHING IN IT IS MINES !!
 

Serveto

Star
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,043
Jews have celebrated Yom Kippur for 2,000 years with neither a temple nor an animal sacrifice. However central animal sacrifice might seem, Moses Maimonides, whose opinions on many matters are considered legally authoritative in Orthodox, normative Judaism, wrote a long article against it. He claimed, in essence, that, though God permitted the practice, because the Jews were addicted -or "accustomed"- to it from copying their pagan neighbors, He sent some of the prophets, including Jeremiah, to preach against it so as to eventually wean them from the practice altogether. Of course, being a, yes, Christ-denying Pharisee in the lineage, he was probably also having to adapt to the fact that the Temple was no longer standing and he was thus helping to redefine post-Temple era, that is to say "rabbinic" Judaism in the absence of the ability to properly perform the sacrificial rituals in Jerusalem. That is understood. He also leaves a lot of Biblical questions unanswered, to my mind, but that doesn't matter.

@Yahda has provided some of the same verses that Maimonides used in his book to make his case and her posts are (thankfully) a lot shorter to read and go directly to the point that Maimonides ultimately made, or tried to make, depending upon one's point of view. In this case, I am only reporting, not advocating, but, for those who might be interested, his article is here.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
I agree save the last part, He clearly did ordain a way that Christs Blood could Atone for Sin, what doesnt matter is what value YOU put on the Blood being shed. You clearly keep rejecting the need for Atonement by Blood, downplaying it in every single post, acting as tho its NOT what actually brought Atonement. The fact is, it is the Blood that brought Atonement, as I have quoted multiple times...



Again you seem to have any lack of understanding the whole of text or symbolism, taking one verse and making it the epitome of the entire essence of Atonement. Just like you keep ignoring the Significances of Blood Atonement then cling to one or two verses to say Sacrifice wasnt really needed. I will address your misuse of that statement in a bit, but God clearly tells us that He will send someone that WILL be the Atonement for Sins, you just choose to ignore these verses in the Old Testament, why? Because you want to reject Jesus as your Lord and Savior...

Is 53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.


Clearly Scripture foretells that SOMEONE will come, a person, and He will bare our griefs and sorrows, that He will be wounded for our transgressions and iniquities aka Sins, that the iniquity of all, aka the Sin of all will be laid upon Him by the Lord, that the Lord will bruise Him, that His soul will be made an OFFERING FOR SIN, that He will bear our iniquities, aka Sin, and that He will make intercession for he transgressors, aka the Sinners, aka you and me.

The constant objections that God never said that He would send a person to bear the Sins of others in the Old Testament if a farce in light of these Scriptures, to say that someone wont bear our Sins and be made an offering aka Sacrifice for Sin is again a complete farce because Scripture makes it explicitly clear. So either you can keep being willfully ignorant and proclaiming a lie or we can begin to see how we can understand all these Scriptures in light of one another instead of trying to make them all stand alone. I personally dont believe that the anything in the Bible, Old or New Contradict so I ask the Holy Spirit to guide me in understanding all these texts that to those who arent Born Again see them as Contradictions or pick and choose which verses they want to hold as True and reject the others.

Would you like to have a conversation on how these verses can all be True at the same time or do you want to keep lying and saying God never ordained that a Human will come and bear the Sins of all and become the Sin Offering aka Atonement for all and the intercessor for all the Sinners aka mankind?



Actually its Gods, and Jesus, and all the Disciples and Apostles, my opinion is based on them, the Old Testament states it, the New Testament states it, its your opinion that isnt based off the Bible that a man wouldnt come to be the Redemption of Sin...



Man you really do have a hard time understanding concepts dont you? So when I asked who isnt blotted out of the Book its essentially a rhetorical question for you contemplate what your trying to tell everyone, which is that all men bear their own Sins and thus since we all bear our own Sins we all will be blotted out of the Book. A logical reasoning I see you have yet to acknowledge...

So what is the Book of Life? Is that simply the Book of those who are alive now, or is this for the Future? That is what I am trying to lead you to discern, because again it would change the entire perception of the verse you are using as the end all be all of Sin and Redemption. If its simply means the Book of those alive now and their Sins will be placed on them, it results in physical death, if it is the Book of Eternal Life, well then everyone including you and I are all going to Hell with no hope of Redemption.



Absolutely not, you undervalue it significantly and we can all see why, as I said the second you acknowledge its importance is the second your ideology begins to crack...



Man if that isnt a contradiction in thought and ideology I dont know what it, so the central part of Israeli Culture is obedience to the Law right? The same Law that mandates Sacrifice for Blood Atonement yet you want to act like that obedience to that Law doesnt really mean that much lol ok then...

Also God never downplayed the important of Sacrifice, its a wonder you dont actually quote the Scripture that you derive that idea from, I know why you havent, because if we actually read what is being told it has absolutely nothing to do with God downplaying Sacrifice and everything to do with Sauls disobedience. Since you wont quote it I will and lets go over it and see if what you are saying is really true or just you misquoting Scripture out of context and trying to cling to a false doctrine to justify rejecting the importance of Blood Sacrifice, which is mandated in the Law...

1 Sam 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Here is the beginning of what was happening before the Verse you would be quoting, so we see that God tells him to go and smite all the Amalek, to utterly destroy them, and what ends up happening?

1 Sam 15:9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

So Saul doesnt do what he was told instead he spared the best sheep and all that was good for himself, then Samuel comes to him and what happens then?

1 Sam 15:13 And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord.

Man so he lies to Samuel and says he did what God told him to do, but clearly he didnt and Samuel calls him out on it:

1 Sam 15:14 And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?

So after being called out by Samuel in his lie, Saul continues his lie and says this:

1 Sam 15:15 And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.

Now he lies and says well yeah the best were spared but it was to sacrifice to the Lord, which again was a lie, and also notice he doesnt take the blame for himself does he? No he blames the people for taking the best things and lies and says THEY were going to sacrifice it to God. So what happens after this? Thats when the verse you would like to quote takes place and in context doesnt have anything at all to do with God not actually desering Sacrifice:

1 Sam 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

So in absolutely no way does this say Sacrifice isnt something God wants or ordains, in context what we see is that Saul went directly against what God commanded in annihilating everything to do with the Amalekites, instead he choose to keep all the Good things for himself, then when confronted about it he lies to Samuel saying he did what God commanded, then when caught in that lie, he lies again and blames the people saying they took it to Sacrifice. Thats when its said look God told you to kill everyone and everything, instead you took things for yourself and use the excuse that you are going to Sacrifice them to God, God never told you to Sacrifice these things, its better that you follow what God tells you to do than to disobey him and use the excuse of Sacrifice as a reason to disobey.

So now that we have this verse in context we can all see this has absolutely nothing to do with God disapproving Sacrifice and everything with obeying Gods Commandment in THAT specific incident to kill everyone not to choose of yourself what you want and then pretend its ok do disobey because you are going to Sacrifice it...

Since that is no longer a Scripture used to negate the importance of Sin, which others ones have you cherry picked out of context to support this ideology, I would love to know so we can do what we did here and put them back in Context to show everyone that God DOES NOT disapprove of Sacrifice, He Commanded it plain and simple...



So now you are saying Jesus didnt exist? Wow lol ok then anything to get rid of that cognitive dissonance I suppose. It would be insanely hard to invent a Character that fulfills all of the Prophecies, if this was a man made invention surely there would be glaring holes and things that are not only internally wrong but Historically wrong. Also this is to deny the hundreds and thousands of people in the 1st century that stated He was a real person and then went on to die for speaking about Him. SMH if you really think this then I have lost pretty much all respect for you...



Except for the fact that YHWH pronounced He would send someone to be the Atonement of all, its like you keep purposefully ignoring this...



Its pretty simple to connect the New with the Old only people who are willfully ignorant refuse to see the fulfillment of Prophecies and how Jesus came to usher in a New Covenant which again YHWH states explicitly He is going to do. I mean if you just look at the Passover and how the dinner is served something that has been done for 1000's of years and see how it matches exactly Christs life death and resurrection one would have to put massive blinders on to think that an invention of human mind could dream up such a thing. Only God could dictate to a Nation a Holy Day and the method in which they are to serve and eat the food on that day and have it literally be a foreshadowing of the coming of Jesus...



No they are Facts, Facts you dont want to acknowledge but Facts none the less...



Yep just doing what Jesus stated to do...

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
41 I receive not honour from men.
42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you.
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?
45 Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father: there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust.
46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me.
47 But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

Here are some more facts that you wont acknowledge, you dont actually believe Moses for if you did, you would believe Jesus because Moses wrote of Jesus. See you dont have the love of God in you according to the Word of God, you refuse to receive Jesus even tho He comes in the Fathers name, when one comes in his own name then you will receive him...



All you have to do is read the Bible, all of it and when you do this that is the conclusion you come to. Start in the Old then New or vice versa regardless when you simply read the whole thing you will see how the New fulfills the Old, unless of course you choose to be willfully ignorant and reject the very obvious fulfillment. I mean I understand how many things can be hidden from your understanding as only those who are Born Again and have the Holy Spirit can truly understand the Word of God as the Carnal Mind is at enmity with God. However this doesnt preclude people from acknowledging how Jesus can be the fulfillment of overt prophesies. Especially when someone like you has been on this forum for years having Born Again people break them down to a point where toddlers could grasp it. For you its simply willful ignorance and as your name suggests having a heart and mind of stone that rejects the Truth no matter how often it is given to you...



You dont have to fear anything, your fear doesnt play apart in the Truth, the Truth is you will stand guilty before God for your Sins and you will not have a covering, the Blood applied to you for Redemption of your Soul. You will stand before God and every single message that has been delivered to you, even this one right here, that you have heard and read will be brought up and you will have to tell God how you willfully rejected His Son and thus as Jesus says:

Matt 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Then you will be place in Hell with the horrible knowledge that you purposefully chose against your own Salvation, full of regret with every message replaying in your head for eternity, I hope you dont choose that fate and open your heart to what Christ has done for you and come to accept Salvation that is freely given to you...



Something is up with what is offered, its called Salvation and I hope that one day you accept it because regardless of your opinion God sent the Final Sacrifice for Sin ( I will acknowledge Ez when I get home) in Christ just as He said He would and its your choice to accept or reject Him, He wont force Himself on you...


Lets not have a conversation going in 400 different directions. If we break everything down it comes down to Exodus 32 and Isaiah 53. So maybe you can reconcile, biblically I might add, how the two can be reconciled. Moses wasnt told anything about being a sinner or blemished. So why was he given the answer of everyone's responsible for themselves if later God was going to come and be responsible for everyone? Wouldnt God see how this could cause confusion? Couldnt God have used this opportunity to give them the plan for the Messiah's "sacrifice"? Instead He says nothing about a future "human sacrifice" and basically contradicts it by saying everyone is responisble for themselves. You reconcile this how? Bible (OT) verses please that help connect the "disconnect"

And in your post, you say all this about "context" but wheres the context with Isaiah 53? You know, the book that originally had no chapters/verses? How do we read Isaiah name the servant by name time and time again before and after chapter 53, but for that one chapter only, it becomes someone else? Did Jesus see his seed? Were his days prolonged? Heck if he was punished in YOUR place, why isnt he facing the punishment YOU deserved? You deserved eternal hell, and he stood in your place, why isnt he facing eternal hell? And even if we accept Isaiah 53 as talking about a human sacrifice, thats it? Thats the only reference you have to provide from the OT, while I have at the very least, three reference that echo what I believe (everyone lives/dies for their own actions)?

The truth of the matter is that theres no consistency with your belief system. Thats why you can say "final sacrifice" then supposedly read Ezekiel speaking of a time in the future where sacrifices will be offered. That will take some googling for an answer Im sure. So the one thing you got right in your post is that I dont have anything to fear with your god. He/it has no authority over me so I dont fret about whatever doctrines you think believing in him or not believing in him brings. Thats for you to worry about. Since I believe the God of Israel, that is my foundation. And with that foundation, you CANT support what you believe so according to the text, I dont have to worry about it..
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
Sorry if this has already been posted, but could you please provide a reference for this @KoncreteMind? I don't know where to find and read this in Ezekiel.
To be clear, Im referencing all of Ezekiel 40 or 41-48 where Ezekiel wrote of a future temple that hasnt been built yet. For something specific out of it:

Ezekiel 43
18 Then he said to me, “Son of man, this is what the Sovereign LORD says: These will be the regulations for sacrificing burnt offerings and splashing blood against the altar when it is built: 19 You are to give a young bull as a sin offering to the Levitical priests of the family of Zadok, who come near to minister before me, declares the Sovereign LORD. 20 You are to take some of its blood and put it on the four horns of the altar and on the four corners of the upper ledge and all around the rim, and so purify the altar and make atonement for it. 21 You are to take the bull for the sin offering and burn it in the designated part of the temple area outside the sanctuary
 

Yahda

Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
711
Sorry if this has already been posted, but could you please provide a reference for this @KoncreteMind? I don't know where to find and read this in Ezekiel.
I know you did not ask me but to add to what KM may say:

Isaiah 34:6 -The sword of the LORD is bathed in blood, it is covered with fat-- the blood of lambs and goats, fat from the kidneys of rams. For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah and a great slaughter in the land of Edom.

There is another I will have to search for but it’s states something to the affect “ that smoke will go up everywhere “ all over the land in honor of TMHG

Then there is the one that says, well first you have to remember that there will be the kingdom of God and his chosen people, then there’s everyone else. Those who will reside outside of the Kingdom of TMHG will have to come every year to offer up a sacrifice or the same curses that fell upon Israel will fall upon that nation.

I’ll update with scriptural references.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,960
There are several passages in the Old Testament that clearly indicate animal sacrifice will be re-instituted during the millennial kingdom. Some passages mention it in passing as the topic of the millennial kingdom is discussed, passages like Isaiah 56:6-8; Zechariah 14:16; and Jeremiah 33:15-18.

The passage that is the most extensive, giving the greatest detail, is Ezekiel 43:18-46:24. It should be noted that this is part of a greater passage dealing with the millennial kingdom, a passage that begins with Ezekiel 40. In Ezekiel 40, the Lord begins to give details of the temple that will exist during the millennial kingdom, a temple that dwarfs all other temples previously built, even Herod’s temple that was quite large, which existed during the earthly ministry of Christ.

After giving details concerning the size and appearance of the temple and the altar, the Lord then begins to give detailed instruction as to the animal sacrifices that will be offered (Ezekiel 43:18-27). In chapter 44, the Lord gives instructions as to who will be offering sacrifices to the Lord. The Lord states that all of the Levites will not be offering blood and fat to the Lord due to previous sin; it will be those from the lineage of Zadok (verse 15). Chapters 45 and 46 continue to mention that animal sacrifices will be made.

The primary objection made to the idea of animal sacrifices returning during the millennial kingdom is that Christ has come and offered a perfect sacrifice for sin, and there is therefore no need to sacrifice animals for sin. However, it must be remembered that animal sacrifice never removed the sin that spiritually separated a person from the Lord.

Hebrews 10:1-4 says, “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never by the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer continually, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins? But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins" (NASB).

It is incorrect to think that animal sacrifices took away sins in the Old Testament, and it is incorrect to think they will do so in the millennial kingdom. Animal sacrifices served as object lessons for the sinner, that sin was and is a horrible offense against God, and that the result of sin is death. Romans 3:20 says, “Because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.”

Most premillennial scholars agree that the purpose of animal sacrifice during the millennial kingdom is memorial in nature. As the Lord’s Supper is a reminder of the death of Christ to the Church today, animal sacrifices will be a reminder during the millennial kingdom. To those born during the millennial kingdom, animal sacrifices will again be an object lesson. During that future time, righteousness and holiness will prevail, but those with earthly bodies will still have a sin nature, and there will be a need to teach about how offensive sin is to a holy and righteous God. Animal sacrifices will serve that purpose, "but in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year" (Hebrews 10:3).

https://www.gotquestions.org/millennial-sacrifices.html

http://www.truthnet.org/Ezekiel/11/Ezekiel-40-Messiah-Millennium-Temple.htm
 
Last edited:

Yahda

Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
711
Sorry if this has already been posted, but could you please provide a reference for this @KoncreteMind? I don't know where to find and read this in Ezekiel.

One more thing I forgot to add is that in reality God’s wrath aka JUDGMENT in itself will serve as the ultimate sacrifice. That hell Christians think is beneath the earth will happen right here on this earth.

I’ll have to find the scriptures but at one point God reference the AROMA of fire and blood to his wrath. Aroma is often referenced to sacrifice.
 

Daciple

Star
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
1,157
If God Himself says not to worry about a sacrifice and that it is better to OBEY ( feel free to note my previous post for scripture references),
Guess you didnt read my previous reply on that did you? Lets see you clearly misquote Samuel right? Oh yeah you did, how did I know?

As I said previously, if you would like to address it be my guest:

Man if that isnt a contradiction in thought and ideology I dont know what it, so the central part of Israeli Culture is obedience to the Law right? The same Law that mandates Sacrifice for Blood Atonement yet you want to act like that obedience to that Law doesnt really mean that much lol ok then...

Also God never downplayed the important of Sacrifice, its a wonder you dont actually quote the Scripture that you derive that idea from, I know why you havent, because if we actually read what is being told it has absolutely nothing to do with God downplaying Sacrifice and everything to do with Sauls disobedience. Since you wont quote it I will and lets go over it and see if what you are saying is really true or just you misquoting Scripture out of context and trying to cling to a false doctrine to justify rejecting the importance of Blood Sacrifice, which is mandated in the Law...

1 Sam 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Here is the beginning of what was happening before the Verse you would be quoting, so we see that God tells him to go and smite all the Amalek, to utterly destroy them, and what ends up happening?

1 Sam 15:9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

So Saul doesnt do what he was told instead he spared the best sheep and all that was good for himself, then Samuel comes to him and what happens then?

1 Sam 15:13 And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord.

Man so he lies to Samuel and says he did what God told him to do, but clearly he didnt and Samuel calls him out on it:

1 Sam 15:14 And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?

So after being called out by Samuel in his lie, Saul continues his lie and says this:

1 Sam 15:15 And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.

Now he lies and says well yeah the best were spared but it was to sacrifice to the Lord, which again was a lie, and also notice he doesnt take the blame for himself does he? No he blames the people for taking the best things and lies and says THEY were going to sacrifice it to God. So what happens after this? Thats when the verse you would like to quote takes place and in context doesnt have anything at all to do with God not actually desering Sacrifice:

1 Sam 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.


So in absolutely no way does this say Sacrifice isnt something God wants or ordains, in context what we see is that Saul went directly against what God commanded in annihilating everything to do with the Amalekites, instead he choose to keep all the Good things for himself, then when confronted about it he lies to Samuel saying he did what God commanded, then when caught in that lie, he lies again and blames the people saying they took it to Sacrifice. Thats when its said look God told you to kill everyone and everything, instead you took things for yourself and use the excuse that you are going to Sacrifice them to God, God never told you to Sacrifice these things, its better that you follow what God tells you to do than to disobey him and use the excuse of Sacrifice as a reason to disobey.

So now that we have this verse in context we can all see this has absolutely nothing to do with God disapproving Sacrifice and everything with obeying Gods Commandment in THAT specific incident to kill everyone not to choose of yourself what you want and then pretend its ok do disobey because you are going to Sacrifice it...

Since that is no longer a Scripture used to negate the importance of Sin, which others ones have you cherry picked out of context to support this ideology, I would love to know so we can do what we did here and put them back in Context to show everyone that God DOES NOT disapprove of Sacrifice, He Commanded it plain and simple...


Theres the actual context of Samuel, has zero to do with not wanting a Sacrifice and everything to do with obeying the Command God gave in that particular circumstance. As I said to KM, if you feint to be a follower of the Old Testament then its a wonder how you can try and say we need to follow the Old Testament, which MANDATES SACRIFICE in the LAW, and then in the same breath say its ok NOT to have Sacrifice, lol the sheer hypocrisy is stunning..

Lets go ahead and address your other Cherry Picked verses see if they mean what you wish them to mean or if it literally doesnt mean that as Samuel doesnt:

Jeremiah 7:22 For when I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt I did not speak with them concerning burnt offerings or a sacrifice, BUT I did command them to OBEY me, and to obey my voice. I will be your God and you shall be my people and walk in all the ways I commanded you so that it may go well with you.

Welp you Cherry Picked again, and clearly are not able to discern what God is speaking about here just as you were not able to discern what He was speaking about in Samuel. All you had to do was go up one little verse to understand what He is saying, which is very similar to what He was saying to Saul but not exactly, however we will see later that this exact same theme is continually present when God speaks about His desire NOT for Sacrifice, something I suppose you havent come to understand yet.

Jer 7:21 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.

I would love to just quote that then ask you how you explain God speaking of Sacrificing 1 verse before your supposed verse to negate the need for Sacrifice, because if what you say is True then God is contradicting Himself within a verse. I would love to see how you keep God from contradicting Himself here, but considering you literally are making God contradict Himself by negating the need for Sacrifice when He LITERALLY commanded it, it wouldnt surprise me if you would just let it stand as a contradiction.

However since I am sure you wouldnt give the proper explanation, I will show how God isnt negating Sacrifice at all, and what this actually means. What God is saying here is that because the people are so Sinful and yet feint to follow and worship Him when in fact they are literally following and worshiping other Gods ( 9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;10 And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the Lord.) that they might as well take their burnt offerings and combined them with their Sacrifices and then eat them. I would assume that you being so knowledgeable on the Old Testament would understand that burnt offerings (aka Sin Offerings) were to be fully consumed with nothing left to eat, and the other Sacrifices could be eaten. The point of this Scripture is God saying because you are not really worshiping me, you might as well go ahead and eat the Offerings for your sins (something forbidden of God) because they serve no purpose. In otherwords why bother going ahead and doing a Ritual for your Sin if you arent looking to have it Truly Forgiven and arent going to follow me?

That sets up the next verse and puts it in context, which if we read it in that context then you literally are condemning yourself by negating Sacrifice. So did God set up Sacrifice when they first came out of Egypt? No He didnt but did they OBEY at all? No they didnt, so what did He do? Set up the Sacrificial System so that when people dont OBEY aka Sin, they have a hope for Atonement. So do YOU obey all the time? If not guess who you are? Ill tell you, you are identical to those who were taken out of Egypt, who DIDNT obey and thus needed a Sacrifice to Atone for their Sins. You negating the need for Sacrifice simply means you are saying either you ALWAYS OBEY, which you dont or even tho I dont OBEY, I dont need your method of Forgiveness for my Sins God. In other words since you reject Gods method of Forgiveness then you will stand guilty before Him...

Next:

Psalms 51:16 For in sacrifice you did not delight- otherwise I would give it to you. You do not find delight in whole burnt offerings.

Lol I mean seriously do you even read the Scriptures that you are Cherry Picking from at all? Just like the prior two once we simply read the Context and the surrounding verses we see that what you are wishing to make it say, it doesnt, and what I and eb and the other Christians are saying about Sacrifice is correct. Please I implore you READ THE WHOLE CHAPTERS NEXT TIME...

Ps 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

This is one of the Scriptures I was going to quote, thanks for doing so to put in CONTEXT what all of these Scriptures about "not needed to Sacrifice" mean, which is identical to the one above. So what does God want over the Sacrifices of Animals in this Scriptures? A broken spirit and a contrite heart, do you understand what that means? It means He desires TRUE WORSHIP, TRUE REPENTANCE, TRUE DESIRE FOR FORGIVENESS, just like the above Scripture. Then what does David say? Does he say dont Sacrifice it really isnt needed? Nope not at all, instead he says what I already pointed out, when someone comes to God with the proper desires, aka True Worship, Repentance, Forgiveness, then the Sacrifice is accepted and pleasing to God. When they come out of obligation, out of Religion, and have no real desire to Worship, Repent or seek Forgiveness then the Sacrifice is meaningless to them. Just like how the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ is absolutely meaningless to you at the moment, because you have yet to come to God with a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart and ask to Truly Worship, Repent and seek Forgiveness from Him. The second you come before God with a broken Spirit and contrite heart, the Sacrifice will have meaning and then and only then will you find Forgiveness for your Sins...

Next:

Psalms 69:30 I will sing praises to the name of God and I will magnify him with thanksgiving this will please Him more than a bull.

So explain how this in anyway negates the need for Sacrifice for Sin. There are many Sacrifices spoken about in the Word of God one being more or less pleasing to God in no way negates the need for any of the others. Shall we now say that because God delights in the Sacrifice of Joy (Ps 27) that the need to offer sacrifices of Thanksgiving (Ps 116) are negated? Heaven forbid, did God command Blood Sacrifice for Sin, yes or no? Then why try and find ways to negate the need of it? I think God wouldnt be very pleased with someone trying to tell others to obey Him and then tell them to disobey His command of Blood Atonement for Sin...

Next:

Psalms 50:8 I did not reprove you because of your sacrifices, nor because of your whole burnt offerings that are constantly before me

Again do you even Bible bro? What does it say right before this?

Ps 50:5 Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.

His saints made a covenant with Him by Sacrifice, why on earth would He call them saints, command them into a covenant by Sacrifice if Sacrifice is to be negated? Once again it is the same exact idea as above and it seems like you dont even understand that verse alone.

That verse is literally saying I do NOT find fault in the fact that you have brought Sacrifices to me, you have kept up doing that which I have commanded you which is to bring the Sacrifices. Further down God tells them exactly why He will reprove or find fault in them saying:

Ps 50:16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?
17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.

21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.


This is literally the EXACT same thing as all the others, I dont find fault in those that bring me Sacrifice who do it out of the right motivation of the heart, however what I do find fault in, is those who bring me Sacrifice but are wicked in all they do and DO NOT actually believe, follow, or have the desire to Repent and seek Forgiveness!! Why do you dare speak about the Covenant made by Sacrifice if you hate the instructions I give and cast everything I tell you to do behind you!!!

Absolutely nothing you have quoted negates the need for Blood Atonement of Sacrifice, all you have done is proven clearly, that one you dont actually read the Bible considering you quote verses to "prove there is no need for Sacrifice" when it says to actually Sacrifice a verses or two away. Two you have basically proven our point with the verses you have Cherry Picked, thank you and three you have actually demonstrated that you stand Guilty before God with the need of a Sacrifice because you DONT OBEY Him, which no one actually can obey Him fully, thus why we including you, need a Sacrifice for the Forgiveness of Sins. Thank God that He gave one thru Christ so that once we come before Him with a broken and contrite Spirit and Heart for our Sins before Him, when we really truly desire to Worship Him and follow after Him and know we need Forgiveness, He will apply the Sacrifice to us so we can be fully Forgiven our Sins!!! Praise the Lord that He has given us a way to be Redeemed even tho we havent always obeyed Him!!!

You can be Forgiven to Yahda all you have to do is be obedient to the call of Christ on your life right now and accept the Sacrifice He made for you!!! I hope one day you come to accept the offer of Grace that is before you and you will sing a New Song and offer Sacrifices of Joy and Thanksgiving before God for all of Eternity!!!
 

Yahda

Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
711
Guess you didnt read my previous reply on that did you? Lets see you clearly misquote Samuel right? Oh yeah you did, how did I know?

As I said previously, if you would like to address it be my guest:

Man if that isnt a contradiction in thought and ideology I dont know what it, so the central part of Israeli Culture is obedience to the Law right? The same Law that mandates Sacrifice for Blood Atonement yet you want to act like that obedience to that Law doesnt really mean that much lol ok then...

Also God never downplayed the important of Sacrifice, its a wonder you dont actually quote the Scripture that you derive that idea from, I know why you havent, because if we actually read what is being told it has absolutely nothing to do with God downplaying Sacrifice and everything to do with Sauls disobedience. Since you wont quote it I will and lets go over it and see if what you are saying is really true or just you misquoting Scripture out of context and trying to cling to a false doctrine to justify rejecting the importance of Blood Sacrifice, which is mandated in the Law...

1 Sam 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Here is the beginning of what was happening before the Verse you would be quoting, so we see that God tells him to go and smite all the Amalek, to utterly destroy them, and what ends up happening?

1 Sam 15:9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

So Saul doesnt do what he was told instead he spared the best sheep and all that was good for himself, then Samuel comes to him and what happens then?

1 Sam 15:13 And Samuel came to Saul: and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the Lord: I have performed the commandment of the Lord.

Man so he lies to Samuel and says he did what God told him to do, but clearly he didnt and Samuel calls him out on it:

1 Sam 15:14 And Samuel said, What meaneth then this bleating of the sheep in mine ears, and the lowing of the oxen which I hear?

So after being called out by Samuel in his lie, Saul continues his lie and says this:

1 Sam 15:15 And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites: for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen, to sacrifice unto the Lord thy God; and the rest we have utterly destroyed.

Now he lies and says well yeah the best were spared but it was to sacrifice to the Lord, which again was a lie, and also notice he doesnt take the blame for himself does he? No he blames the people for taking the best things and lies and says THEY were going to sacrifice it to God. So what happens after this? Thats when the verse you would like to quote takes place and in context doesnt have anything at all to do with God not actually desering Sacrifice:

1 Sam 15:22 And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.


So in absolutely no way does this say Sacrifice isnt something God wants or ordains, in context what we see is that Saul went directly against what God commanded in annihilating everything to do with the Amalekites, instead he choose to keep all the Good things for himself, then when confronted about it he lies to Samuel saying he did what God commanded, then when caught in that lie, he lies again and blames the people saying they took it to Sacrifice. Thats when its said look God told you to kill everyone and everything, instead you took things for yourself and use the excuse that you are going to Sacrifice them to God, God never told you to Sacrifice these things, its better that you follow what God tells you to do than to disobey him and use the excuse of Sacrifice as a reason to disobey.

So now that we have this verse in context we can all see this has absolutely nothing to do with God disapproving Sacrifice and everything with obeying Gods Commandment in THAT specific incident to kill everyone not to choose of yourself what you want and then pretend its ok do disobey because you are going to Sacrifice it...

Since that is no longer a Scripture used to negate the importance of Sin, which others ones have you cherry picked out of context to support this ideology, I would love to know so we can do what we did here and put them back in Context to show everyone that God DOES NOT disapprove of Sacrifice, He Commanded it plain and simple...


Theres the actual context of Samuel, has zero to do with not wanting a Sacrifice and everything to do with obeying the Command God gave in that particular circumstance. As I said to KM, if you feint to be a follower of the Old Testament then its a wonder how you can try and say we need to follow the Old Testament, which MANDATES SACRIFICE in the LAW, and then in the same breath say its ok NOT to have Sacrifice, lol the sheer hypocrisy is stunning..

Lets go ahead and address your other Cherry Picked verses see if they mean what you wish them to mean or if it literally doesnt mean that as Samuel doesnt:

Jeremiah 7:22 For when I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt I did not speak with them concerning burnt offerings or a sacrifice, BUT I did command them to OBEY me, and to obey my voice. I will be your God and you shall be my people and walk in all the ways I commanded you so that it may go well with you.

Welp you Cherry Picked again, and clearly are not able to discern what God is speaking about here just as you were not able to discern what He was speaking about in Samuel. All you had to do was go up one little verse to understand what He is saying, which is very similar to what He was saying to Saul but not exactly, however we will see later that this exact same theme is continually present when God speaks about His desire NOT for Sacrifice, something I suppose you havent come to understand yet.

Jer 7:21 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.

I would love to just quote that then ask you how you explain God speaking of Sacrificing 1 verse before your supposed verse to negate the need for Sacrifice, because if what you say is True then God is contradicting Himself within a verse. I would love to see how you keep God from contradicting Himself here, but considering you literally are making God contradict Himself by negating the need for Sacrifice when He LITERALLY commanded it, it wouldnt surprise me if you would just let it stand as a contradiction.

However since I am sure you wouldnt give the proper explanation, I will show how God isnt negating Sacrifice at all, and what this actually means. What God is saying here is that because the people are so Sinful and yet feint to follow and worship Him when in fact they are literally following and worshiping other Gods ( 9 Will ye steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely, and burn incense unto Baal, and walk after other gods whom ye know not;10 And come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, We are delivered to do all these abominations?11 Is this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, even I have seen it, saith the Lord.) that they might as well take their burnt offerings and combined them with their Sacrifices and then eat them. I would assume that you being so knowledgeable on the Old Testament would understand that burnt offerings (aka Sin Offerings) were to be fully consumed with nothing left to eat, and the other Sacrifices could be eaten. The point of this Scripture is God saying because you are not really worshiping me, you might as well go ahead and eat the Offerings for your sins (something forbidden of God) because they serve no purpose. In otherwords why bother going ahead and doing a Ritual for your Sin if you arent looking to have it Truly Forgiven and arent going to follow me?

That sets up the next verse and puts it in context, which if we read it in that context then you literally are condemning yourself by negating Sacrifice. So did God set up Sacrifice when they first came out of Egypt? No He didnt but did they OBEY at all? No they didnt, so what did He do? Set up the Sacrificial System so that when people dont OBEY aka Sin, they have a hope for Atonement. So do YOU obey all the time? If not guess who you are? Ill tell you, you are identical to those who were taken out of Egypt, who DIDNT obey and thus needed a Sacrifice to Atone for their Sins. You negating the need for Sacrifice simply means you are saying either you ALWAYS OBEY, which you dont or even tho I dont OBEY, I dont need your method of Forgiveness for my Sins God. In other words since you reject Gods method of Forgiveness then you will stand guilty before Him...

Next:

Psalms 51:16 For in sacrifice you did not delight- otherwise I would give it to you. You do not find delight in whole burnt offerings.

Lol I mean seriously do you even read the Scriptures that you are Cherry Picking from at all? Just like the prior two once we simply read the Context and the surrounding verses we see that what you are wishing to make it say, it doesnt, and what I and eb and the other Christians are saying about Sacrifice is correct. Please I implore you READ THE WHOLE CHAPTERS NEXT TIME...

Ps 51:16 For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.
17 The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
18 Do good in thy good pleasure unto Zion: build thou the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then shalt thou be pleased with the sacrifices of righteousness, with burnt offering and whole burnt offering: then shall they offer bullocks upon thine altar.

This is one of the Scriptures I was going to quote, thanks for doing so to put in CONTEXT what all of these Scriptures about "not needed to Sacrifice" mean, which is identical to the one above. So what does God want over the Sacrifices of Animals in this Scriptures? A broken spirit and a contrite heart, do you understand what that means? It means He desires TRUE WORSHIP, TRUE REPENTANCE, TRUE DESIRE FOR FORGIVENESS, just like the above Scripture. Then what does David say? Does he say dont Sacrifice it really isnt needed? Nope not at all, instead he says what I already pointed out, when someone comes to God with the proper desires, aka True Worship, Repentance, Forgiveness, then the Sacrifice is accepted and pleasing to God. When they come out of obligation, out of Religion, and have no real desire to Worship, Repent or seek Forgiveness then the Sacrifice is meaningless to them. Just like how the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ is absolutely meaningless to you at the moment, because you have yet to come to God with a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart and ask to Truly Worship, Repent and seek Forgiveness from Him. The second you come before God with a broken Spirit and contrite heart, the Sacrifice will have meaning and then and only then will you find Forgiveness for your Sins...

Next:

Psalms 69:30 I will sing praises to the name of God and I will magnify him with thanksgiving this will please Him more than a bull.

So explain how this in anyway negates the need for Sacrifice for Sin. There are many Sacrifices spoken about in the Word of God one being more or less pleasing to God in no way negates the need for any of the others. Shall we now say that because God delights in the Sacrifice of Joy (Ps 27) that the need to offer sacrifices of Thanksgiving (Ps 116) are negated? Heaven forbid, did God command Blood Sacrifice for Sin, yes or no? Then why try and find ways to negate the need of it? I think God wouldnt be very pleased with someone trying to tell others to obey Him and then tell them to disobey His command of Blood Atonement for Sin...

Next:

Psalms 50:8 I did not reprove you because of your sacrifices, nor because of your whole burnt offerings that are constantly before me

Again do you even Bible bro? What does it say right before this?

Ps 50:5 Gather my saints together unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by sacrifice.

His saints made a covenant with Him by Sacrifice, why on earth would He call them saints, command them into a covenant by Sacrifice if Sacrifice is to be negated? Once again it is the same exact idea as above and it seems like you dont even understand that verse alone.

That verse is literally saying I do NOT find fault in the fact that you have brought Sacrifices to me, you have kept up doing that which I have commanded you which is to bring the Sacrifices. Further down God tells them exactly why He will reprove or find fault in them saying:

Ps 50:16 But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare my statutes, or that thou shouldest take my covenant in thy mouth?
17 Seeing thou hatest instruction, and casteth my words behind thee.

21 These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.


This is literally the EXACT same thing as all the others, I dont find fault in those that bring me Sacrifice who do it out of the right motivation of the heart, however what I do find fault in, is those who bring me Sacrifice but are wicked in all they do and DO NOT actually believe, follow, or have the desire to Repent and seek Forgiveness!! Why do you dare speak about the Covenant made by Sacrifice if you hate the instructions I give and cast everything I tell you to do behind you!!!

Absolutely nothing you have quoted negates the need for Blood Atonement of Sacrifice, all you have done is proven clearly, that one you dont actually read the Bible considering you quote verses to "prove there is no need for Sacrifice" when it says to actually Sacrifice a verses or two away. Two you have basically proven our point with the verses you have Cherry Picked, thank you and three you have actually demonstrated that you stand Guilty before God with the need of a Sacrifice because you DONT OBEY Him, which no one actually can obey Him fully, thus why we including you, need a Sacrifice for the Forgiveness of Sins. Thank God that He gave one thru Christ so that once we come before Him with a broken and contrite Spirit and Heart for our Sins before Him, when we really truly desire to Worship Him and follow after Him and know we need Forgiveness, He will apply the Sacrifice to us so we can be fully Forgiven our Sins!!! Praise the Lord that He has given us a way to be Redeemed even tho we havent always obeyed Him!!!

You can be Forgiven to Yahda all you have to do is be obedient to the call of Christ on your life right now and accept the Sacrifice He made for you!!! I hope one day you come to accept the offer of Grace that is before you and you will sing a New Song and offer Sacrifices of Joy and Thanksgiving before God for all of Eternity!!!

No I didn’t read it. No offense. I NEVER read your post. They are always too long.

I know the truth is simple and does not take 5000 word count responses. Simply “precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little” in complete context.
 

Red Sky at Morning

Superstar
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
13,960
No I didn’t read it. No offense. I NEVER read your post. They are always too long.

I know the truth is simple and does not take 5000 word count responses. Simply “precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little” in complete context.
Or, as Paul Simon put it...

all-lies-and-jests-still-a-man-hears-what-he-wants-to-hear-and-disregards-the-rest-quote-1.jpg
 

Daciple

Star
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
1,157
No I didn’t read it. No offense. I NEVER read your post. They are always too long.

I know the truth is simple and does not take 5000 word count responses. Simply “precept upon precept, line upon line, here a little there a little” in complete context.
Yes books and like are too long to, theres no Truth to be found in them if they are over 140 characters. To those with eyes...
 

Daciple

Star
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
1,157
Of course, being a, yes, Christ-denying Pharisee in the lineage, he was probably also having to adapt to the fact that the Temple was no longer standing and he was thus helping to redefine post-Temple era, that is to say "rabbinic" Judaism in the absence of the ability to properly perform the sacrificial rituals in Jerusalem
Welp you already gave the answer to your own objection lol

With that said how much you want to bet that if the Temple gets restored there will be Sacrifices going on as laid out in the Law of Moses?

has provided some of the same verses that Maimonides used in his book to make his case and her posts are (thankfully) a lot shorter to read and go directly to the point that Maimonides ultimately made, or tried to make, depending upon one's point of view.
Then I would say that he Cherry Picks just like Yahda did, and thus although I havent read the article yet would find his expertise lacking if a layman such as myself or any of the Christians here can easily put those verses in Context and show that none of them in anyway negates Sacrifice...

Like I said there is zero doubt in my mind that if a Temple was here today, the Jews would be Sacrificing and to try and say that the Sacrifices were somehow associated or done because of the Pagan Neighbors is to outright reject the Word of God.
 

Yahda

Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
711
Ps 49:7 (courtesy ofGCB) None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him.

Ezekiel 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.”

When you add such scriptures into the mix I think I rest my case.

Simple logic. There will still be sacrifices so how did someone die for sin ?

As I have said before, God is not worried about a sacrifice. Rest assured he will get His!
 

Daciple

Star
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
1,157
So heres the ridiculous debate tactic of Yahda and KM basically, look at these 5-10 Scriptures that look like they negate Sacrifices (but in Context they dont). See Sacrifice doesnt mean that much to God.

In following along with this line of debate, here are 270 times God calls for Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 5-10 being what Yadha and KM have quoted, clearly Sacrifice is important to God...

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=KJV&quicksearch=sacrifice&begin=1&end=46
 

Yahda

Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
711
So heres the ridiculous debate tactic of Yahda and KM basically, look at these 5-10 Scriptures that look like they negate Sacrifices (but in Context they dont). See Sacrifice doesnt mean that much to God.

In following along with this line of debate, here are 270 times God calls for Sacrifice in the Old Testament, 5-10 being what Yadha and KM have quoted, clearly Sacrifice is important to God...

https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?qs_version=KJV&quicksearch=sacrifice&begin=1&end=46
We, or I know it’s important. The point is that NO ONE CAN DIE FOR YOUR SINS

and that sacrifices will still occur in the future.

AS OF NOW there are no sacrifices. For one there is no Kingdom. Two, there are no priests. We are not on Holy Land, there is no temple.....and sacrifices will not go back up until these things have been established.

The point is God did not reprove Israel over sacrifice. They did not obey. Something God spoke of on numerous occasions. Not even in regard to sacrifice. He’s constantly pleading with His people to LISTEN and OBEY his Laws and commandments. That’s all he ask. It’s not that hard. We too focused on a sacrifice ignoring the statues laws and judgments that he laid down for us.

I continue to attempt to relate the idea of obeying His WORD to salvation but some of you don’t get it. You are saved by OBEYING what thus said the Lord. He spoke in the OT and to the prophets. As he said in Malachi 4:4 REMEMBER the law ( the WORD) of my servant Moses, the regulations and judgments that I commanded at Horeb for all of Israel to obey.

Religion has manifested this idea into a physical savior thus creating SUN/SON IDOL WORSHIP ! You all don’t get it.
 

Daciple

Star
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
1,157
Moses wasnt told anything about being a sinner or blemished.
So KM tell me IS Moses a sinner or blemished, be honest, yes or no?

QUOTE="KoncreteMind, post: 73903, member: 177"]So why was he given the answer of everyone's responsible for themselves if later God was going to come and be responsible for everyone?[/QUOTE]

Let me ask, do you believe that Sin leads to Death? If so are we still responsible of ourselves for Sin in the Physical Life? Are you able to comprehend now what I am getting at concerning what Book God is speaking about?

Wouldnt God see how this could cause confusion? Couldnt God have used this opportunity to give them the plan for the Messiah's "sacrifice"? Instead He says nothing about a future "human sacrifice" and basically contradicts it by saying everyone is responisble for themselves.
God already demonstrated using a person for Sacrifice for Sin, its called Foreshadowing. Are you willing to be intellectually honest and admit God does or at least can Foreshadow something?

If so does God EVER Foreshadow a human being used as a Sacrifice for Sin prior to Jesus Christ or Moses?

Gen 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Burnt offerings are offerings for Sin, thus God said to Abraham go offer your only Son Isaac as a Sacrifice for Sin, however as we know He stops Abraham for doing so, this my friend is called Foreshadowing, God Himself sends His own Son for the Sacrifice. If we look at what happens with Abraham, there is a Substitute given in place of his son, just as Jesus is our Substitute, again more Foreshadowing from the Old Testament...

Also who are you or I to tell God when and how He should speak on the plan for the Christ as the Sacrifice. And would it even matter to you? What does Jesus say to someone such as yourself via a Parable?

Luke 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Moses and the Prophets speak of Christ and how to keep from Hell, yet if one isnt willing after multiple years of having it laid out for them, even tho a man DID rise from dead, still you arent persuaded...

With that said you sir have still to address what the final state of what you keep implying is, would you be willing to address it? I am feel I fully answer what you post towards me, would you kindly do the same?

If we are fully responsible for our own Sins, and you are going to stick to your guns about this being the end all be all of Sin and Redemption, then doesnt that mean you and I and everyone else is going to Hell, aka blotted out of the Book of Life? If not then how not since there is no redemption for Sin?

And in your post, you say all this about "context" but wheres the context with Isaiah 53?
Is in the Chapter, fully on display, I am not picking one verse and trying to make it stand alone, its all there, over and over again showing Atonement for Sin by a person of which all the Sins are laid upon them...

How do we read Isaiah name the servant by name time and time again before and after chapter 53, but for that one chapter only, it becomes someone else?
Lol how do you figure that?

Did Jesus see his seed?
Yes, every believer is the seed of Christ...

Were his days prolonged?
Jesus is alive...

Heck if he was punished in YOUR place, why isnt he facing the punishment YOU deserved? You deserved eternal hell, and he stood in your place, why isnt he facing eternal hell?
He took the full wrath of God upon Himself, He suffered all the Wrath that all humanity would suffer in Hell for Eternity upon the Cross, so He not only faced it He literally took it all...

Thats the only reference you have to provide from the OT, while I have at the very least, three reference that echo what I believe (everyone lives/dies for their own actions)?
Honestly bro, I have over the years provided scores of verses proving Christ in the Old Testament, you dont care, I just gave you yet another one where Abraham went to offer his ONLY son as a Sacrifice for Sin. You dont care you will find another excuse to reject the very clear Foreshadowing of Christ coming to die for Sin. I mean look at you, you are trying to tell me and EVERYONE else to follow the Law of Moses all the time, then tell us that Sacrifice doesnt mean that much or isnt really needed for Forgiveness of Sin. The Law says it does but when its convenient for you, you dismiss it.

So exactly how many more Scriptures do you personally need to believe in Christ? 5? 15? 25? 105? Does it matter?

I truly believe at this point the Scripture I posted above is a direct reference to you, even tho one would rise from the dead you still wont believe will you?

The truth of the matter is that theres no consistency with your belief system.
Haha, nonsense, there is no consistency with your belief system, Mr I follow the Law of Moses except really I dont...

Thats why you can say "final sacrifice" then supposedly read Ezekiel speaking of a time in the future where sacrifices will be offered.
Red posted a detailed post concerning that from a Pre Millennial view, Ill let that stand, you can rebut it if you like...

So the one thing you got right in your post is that I dont have anything to fear with your god.
I said whether you fear Him or not doesnt matter, the Truth is the Truth and my God is your God is the only God.

He/it has no authority over me
Yes He does, He created you and you will meet Him one day, hopefully in this life and come to Salvation otherwise you have over and over rejected His Atonement for your Sins and just as if there was a Temple here on Earth today and the High Priest made a Sacrifice for your Sin and you spit in his face and rejected it, you will stand guilty before Him, with my last post and this post burning in your mind for all of eternity...

Since I believe the God of Israel, that is my foundation. And with that foundation, you CANT support what you believe so according to the text, I dont have to worry about it..
Lol I support everything from whatever parts of the Bible you want to use doesnt matter to me, you however dont believe in the God of Moses for if you did you would believe in Christ. Jesus is the Son of the God of Israel, hope you come to know YHWH one day brother...
 

Yahda

Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
711
So now that everyone agree that sacrifice will indeed go back up, let’s see someone explain how Jesus became a ransom for sin ?
Welp you already gave the answer to your own objection lol

With that said how much you want to bet that if the Temple gets restored there will be Sacrifices going on as laid out in the Law of Moses?



Then I would say that he Cherry Picks just like Yahda did, and thus although I havent read the article yet would find his expertise lacking if a layman such as myself or any of the Christians here can easily put those verses in Context and show that none of them in anyway negates Sacrifice...

Like I said there is zero doubt in my mind that if a Temple was here today, the Jews would be Sacrificing and to try and say that the Sacrifices were somehow associated or done because of the Pagan Neighbors is to outright reject the Word of God.

Then you accuse me of cherry picking scriptures,......... scriptures that PROVED MY POINT......that it is more important to OBEY,.......not you used those same scriptures to prove the point I had already made, yet you acted as if you had really disproved me. When in actuality you just reiterated what I said. Wow !

That’s why I never trust 5000 word counts. It’s screams deception.

Now that WE proved the point some of us have been trying to make for days, let’s get back to the topic and prove what it is we are really trying to prove.

Randsome to whom and why ? Remember there will still be sacrifices. So what was this randsome for ?
 

Daciple

Star
Joined
Apr 25, 2017
Messages
1,157
I didn't raise an objection. I reported on what Maimonides wrote.
Let me rephrase then, you negated what he wrote in your own writings ;)

I perhaps mistakenly thought you were the one who was, more or less, calling Judaism to the witness stand in support of Christianity. To me, that, at times, can be ill advised.
I dont really call Judaism to the stand I call the Old Testament and the Religion of Abraham to the stand which is in my view wholly different than Modern Judaism which is essentially the Religion of the Pharisees. Ezekiel 8 tells us exactly who the Pharisees aka Modern Judaism worships and it is NOT the God of Abraham, if it was then they wouldnt have crucified Christ...

With that said, except for your comment about @Yahda, which I think is unproductive but might be your style when you are on a roll, I agree with a lot of what you write here, and some Jews are anticipating the kick-starting of their blood rites and rituals, but the fact remains that there are plenty of objections to the practice, including from Maimonides himself, obviously. I think he does rather inconsistently, it seems to me, say that, in the, or his "Messianic" era, sacrifices will resume. That is one of the questions which I consider he inadequately addresses, and I said he left questions unanswered. Why, for instance, if what he says is true, that Jews copied the practice from pagans, it will be reinstated in the future? A lot of Jews, even religious Jews, are against animal sacrifices, and, if and when the time comes, will probably rebel against their fellow countrymen and women in Israel, those who do want them, when the blood letting resumes. I think they consider it a form of atavism. At any rate, we might soon see that happen. If and when we do, I will probably "report" in on that phenomenon as well. If I decide to do that, I hope you won't mind. I like a lot of your posts, written in your fire-brand style, and will enjoy reading your reaction to the proceedings.
I agree with the inconsistencies of declaring its Pagan to negate it in the present and declare it to be reinstated in the future by God Himself (again?)

And of course I wont mind, I dont mind anything you post, I enjoy your posts and your even keel, intelligent style. I didnt know that many Jews were against Animal Sacrifice, but I believe that the main motivation of them being against it is of course to be able to have the ability to keep their Religion going without the Temple. Clearly that is a hard thing to contend with, a God that tells you to Sacrifice and then allows a Temple for these Sacrifices and then have it all destroyed. Pretty much stuck saying eh He really didnt want it that bad, its not a big deal or else you would have to concede that you are guilty before God because no Sacrifices are taking place. Hence the 2 pseudo Jews making that case now IMO...
 

Yahda

Veteran
Joined
Mar 14, 2017
Messages
711
I’m not a Jew who say they are Jew from the synagogue of Satan. I repeat. I have no association with so called “ Jews” their book, nor their practices.

Ju is short for JUDAH. Not jews or Jewish meaning sorta Jew, I converted. The real Judah and Israel according to scripture has been scattered and have no recollection as to who they are.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2017
Messages
2,342
So KM tell me IS Moses a sinner or blemished, be honest, yes or no?

Let me ask, do you believe that Sin leads to Death? If so are we still responsible of ourselves for Sin in the Physical Life? Are you able to comprehend now what I am getting at concerning what Book God is speaking about?
Why are you asking me questions without answering what was already asked? Its not a question of if Moses was a sinner or not because again, he was not given the answer that he could not do what he asked because he has sinned. Why cant we deal with the answer he WAS given and how it relates to your human sacrifice belief?

Mind just plainly stating what book it is you're referring to?

God already demonstrated using a person for Sacrifice for Sin, its called Foreshadowing. Are you willing to be intellectually honest and admit God does or at least can Foreshadow something?

If so does God EVER Foreshadow a human being used as a Sacrifice for Sin prior to Jesus Christ or Moses?

Gen 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
2 And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Burnt offerings are offerings for Sin, thus God said to Abraham go offer your only Son Isaac as a Sacrifice for Sin, however as we know He stops Abraham for doing so, this my friend is called Foreshadowing, God Himself sends His own Son for the Sacrifice. If we look at what happens with Abraham, there is a Substitute given in place of his son, just as Jesus is our Substitute, again more Foreshadowing from the Old Testament...
Yes you say thats foreshadowing but you dont get that its foreshadowing from the context of the verse OR from anything out the OT. Thats the problem here. All your doctrine is fixated on the NT and that from the OT gets ignored UNLESS its corroborating what you've read in the NT.. Calling that verse or any verse (such as Passover) foreshadowing is easy. Showing how its so using the OT? Impossible....

Also who are you or I to tell God when and how He should speak on the plan for the Christ as the Sacrifice. And would it even matter to you? What does Jesus say to someone such as yourself via a Parable?
I dont tell God when to or not to speak. I said that He didnt leave room for a human sacrifice. And thats clear when you can only point to ONE verse as proof of a future human sacrifice. Any other verses are you simply saying "foreshadowing" without exemplifying how its so with the text...

Moses and the Prophets speak of Christ and how to keep from Hell, yet if one isnt willing after multiple years of having it laid out for them, even tho a man DID rise from dead, still you arent persuaded...

With that said you sir have still to address what the final state of what you keep implying is, would you be willing to address it? I am feel I fully answer what you post towards me, would you kindly do the same?

If we are fully responsible for our own Sins, and you are going to stick to your guns about this being the end all be all of Sin and Redemption, then doesnt that mean you and I and everyone else is going to Hell, aka blotted out of the Book of Life? If not then how not since there is no redemption for Sin?
Moses said to NOT believe people because of works but only based on them upholding what God commanded (Deut 13). So Jesus can kill himself and raise himself from the dead all he wants. Im NOT to believe him based on works/miracles/wonders..

Is in the Chapter, fully on display, I am not picking one verse and trying to make it stand alone, its all there, over and over again showing Atonement for Sin by a person of which all the Sins are laid upon them...



Lol how do you figure that?
Sure you're picking one chpater and making it stand alone. Again I ask, who did Isaiah name as the servant? In a book with no chapters/verses, how could you get to the paragraphs that entail Chapter 53, and randomly switch the servant from who Isaiah repeatedly named, to who you say it is today?

Yes, every believer is the seed of Christ...
Let me rephrase. Did Jesus refer to anyone as being his seed at that time or in the future? To cut to the chase, no he did not. He said only the Father in heaven is to be called father and everyone that does his will is the brother/mother/sister of Jesus. Perfect time to mention being his seed, but of course it doesnt get mentioned.

He took the full wrath of God upon Himself, He suffered all the Wrath that all humanity would suffer in Hell for Eternity upon the Cross, so He not only faced it He literally took it all...
No the "wrath that all humanity would suffer in hell" equates to an eternity. Why isnt Jesus serving your punishment of eternity in hell if he stood in your place?

Honestly bro, I have over the years provided scores of verses proving Christ in the Old Testament, you dont care, I just gave you yet another one where Abraham went to offer his ONLY son as a Sacrifice for Sin. You dont care you will find another excuse to reject the very clear Foreshadowing of Christ coming to die for Sin. I mean look at you, you are trying to tell me and EVERYONE else to follow the Law of Moses all the time, then tell us that Sacrifice doesnt mean that much or isnt really needed for Forgiveness of Sin. The Law says it does but when its convenient for you, you dismiss it.

So exactly how many more Scriptures do you personally need to believe in Christ? 5? 15? 25? 105? Does it matter?

I truly believe at this point the Scripture I posted above is a direct reference to you, even tho one would rise from the dead you still wont believe will you?
Well you can pull up any miracles you like. I dont believe based off miracles/signs/wonders. Only believe if what you're saying is based in what God said. Its clearly not which is why you have to reference everything but what he said.. Thats first off. Secondly, I've reiterated that blood atoned for sin. Thats clearly written. I then said that its not the ONLY WAY TO ATONE FOR SIN. Had to capitalize it so you could refer to the other ways, that did not include blood, where sin was atoned for. As for foreshadowing, you could read anything in the OT and simply slap a label of "foreshadowing" and be done with it. OR, you could actually go thru the text (meaning OT) and show how its foreshadowing anything. That you cant do though, so we're left with labels you slap on the text....

Red posted a detailed post concerning that from a Pre Millennial view, Ill let that stand, you can rebut it if you like...
And that will be easy to do...


I said whether you fear Him or not doesnt matter, the Truth is the Truth and my God is your God is the only God.
And I said I dont fear him and that he has no authority over me. Nor does your doctrine of "believe in my god or go to hell". Maybe that applies to you, but my people were given the OT and only the OT to abide by. Im cool with going with that till my death or being shown a logical and more consistent belief system I should be following. That isnt and wont ever be what you're following...

Yes He does, He created you and you will meet Him one day, hopefully in this life and come to Salvation otherwise you have over and over rejected His Atonement for your Sins and just as if there was a Temple here on Earth today and the High Priest made a Sacrifice for your Sin and you spit in his face and rejected it, you will stand guilty before Him, with my last post and this post burning in your mind for all of eternity...

Lol I support everything from whatever parts of the Bible you want to use doesnt matter to me, you however dont believe in the God of Moses for if you did you would believe in Christ. Jesus is the Son of the God of Israel, hope you come to know YHWH one day brother...
Nobody named "Jesus" created my sir. So again, I dont worry about your doctrine of salvation being true because biblically, from the OT's perspective, its not. So yea I do spit in the face of your belief that the God of Israel suggested a human sacrifice for atonement. Thats out of the books of pagans, not the God of Israel. So Im fine with standing on the rock I stand...
 
Top