Pre-Christ Atonement

[3spddrft]

Prior to Jesus Christ being sacrificed as the "Lamb" to end all lambs. People were doing as needed to pay for their sins. I believe, these people were just superstitious. While there may or may not be divinity in Jesus, I'm raising the question of the divine practice of animal sacrifice which by current standards seems barbaric. Yet, instead of doing animal sacrifice it is the sacrifice of a super natural being to whom we are all grateful.

Was the sacrifice of Christ superstition just as the sacrifice of goats and lambs?

[Izak]

ah damn, ive never heard that side before, and i have to say it makes sense

[Ender]

A religious person, or at least a Christian, would not view either as superstitious.

[Jack]

The belief that by sacrifice, animal or human, you can free yourself of evil, be it demons or nature, is superstitious.

[ncb1397]

I'm raising the question of the divine practice of animal sacrifice which by current standards seems barbaric.

I don't think it is barbaric by, at the very least, western modern standards. 50 to 100 million vertebrates are used in animal testing each year and a lot of it is both painful over extended periods of time and deadly. Animal sacrifice is usually just deadly and not painful for extended periods of time.

[Jack]

There's a philosophical difference between killing animals for food or in the interest of research and sacrificing them to ward off evil spirits. The reasons are of no interest to the animal being killed I admit. But researchers are not killing animals to appease gods. And no researchers I know of are sacrificing children, that's solely being done by believers in witchcraft and spirits.

[minorwork]

A religious person, or at least a Christian, would not view either as superstitious.

What would they view as superstitious? Is there no such thing?

[Spurgeon2.0]

Prior to Jesus Christ being sacrificed as the "Lamb" to end all lambs. People were doing as needed to pay for their sins. I believe, these people were just superstitious. While there may or may not be divinity in Jesus, I'm raising the question of the divine practice of animal sacrifice which by current standards seems barbaric. Yet, instead of doing animal sacrifice it is the sacrifice of a super natural being to whom we are all grateful.

Was the sacrifice of Christ superstition just as the sacrifice of goats and lambs?

This question boils down to was Christ actually sacrificed by people ,or was Christ crucified. The answer is he was crucified ,and that he rose up again on the third day. I could go threw the boring historical documents that prove that claim ,but I don't want to waste your time instead I will bring you into a little light of why Christ had to be sacrificed and why we are more than grateful ,but rather in debt eternally for it.

In Grudem's Systematic Theollogy Page 568 it says
"B. The Neccessity of the Atonement
Was there any other way for God to save human beings than by sending his Son to die in our place?
Before answering this question, it is important to realize that it was not neccessary for God to save any people at all. When we appreciate that "God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committted them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment"(2 Peter 2:4), then we realize that God could also have chosen with perfect justice to have left us in our sins awaiting judgment: he could have chosen to save no one, just as he did with the sinful angels. Son in the sense the atonement was not absolutely neccessary.
But once God, in his love, decided to save some human beings, then several passages in Scripture indicate that there was no other way for God to do this than through the death of his Son. Therefore, the atonement was not absolutely neccessary.This is sometimes called the "consequent absolute necessity" view of the atonement."

Alright so we see that it was totally neccisarry ,however your question is pointless for the simple fact that it makes no sense.
"Prior to Jesus Christ being sacrificed as the "Lamb" to end all lambs. People were doing as needed to pay for their sins. I believe, these people were just superstitious"
Where is your evidence that the Jews were sacrificing superstitiously?

We look in Hebrews 9: 1-10 for a quick summary of why the high preist presented sacrifices.

1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover.[a] But we cannot discuss these things in detail now. 6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.


The whole idea behind the sacrifice was Christ and, it wasn't anything else they sacrificed because they feared the Lord. It is as simple as those two facts.


However, you can make the argument that Israel had disbelief easily. You can also make the argument that they were sacrificing to Pagan gods because of superstition ,and the wives that they took. All in all however, those two arguments do not come into the realm of thought when we are talking about Christ and him crucifed.


S2.0

[ItsDarts]

This question boils down to was Christ actually sacrificed by people ,or was Christ crucified. The answer is he was crucified ,and that he rose up again on the third day. I could go threw the boring historical documents that prove that claim ,but I don't want to waste your time instead I will bring you into a little light of why Christ had to be sacrificed and why we are more than grateful ,but rather in debt eternally for it.

First, You ask if he was sacrificed or crucified, and you say he was crucified. Then in the next you proclaim "why" Christ had to be sacrificed. Which is it? Actually, crucifixion is the "method" used to sacrifice him. Secondly, there is no such thing as "historical documents" that "prove" any claims of any kind. Historical documents are only evidence of claims being made, not evidence of the actual claim. There is a difference. There are historical documents that "claim" George Washington had wooden teeth, but that doesn't "prove" he had wooden teeth. So unless you have actual evidence that 3 day old dead people can come back to life, claims are just that, claims.

In Grudem's Systematic Theollogy Page 568 it says

As if this is of any authority? Actually, its an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy, and fallacies, as we all know, make your argument, unsound at best.

"B. The Neccessity of the Atonement
Was there any other way for God to save human beings than by sending his Son to die in our place?

So he was "sacrificed". OK, now that that is clear.....

Before answering this question, it is important to realize that it was not necessary for God to save any people at all. When we appreciate that "God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committted them to pits of nether gloom to be kept until the judgment"(2 Peter 2:4), then we realize that God could also have chosen with perfect justice to have left us in our sins awaiting judgment: he could have chosen to save no one, just as he did with the sinful angels. Son in the sense the atonement was not absolutely neccessary.

There are a couple problems with this, the first being that you presuppose that God exists and therefore the bible is true or you presuppose the bible is true and therefore god exists. This is circular reasoning, another fallacy. God could have chosen "in his perfect justice" to just say, "I forgive you". Much simpler, more humane and in fact, is what we do with our own children. If we can do it, why can't god? He's certainly capable. I suppose next you will ask, who are we to question gods ways? We are his creation (presumed) who were given free will to question his ways.

But once God, in his love, decided to save some human beings, then several passages in Scripture indicate that there was no other way for God to do this than through the death of his Son. Therefore, the atonement was not absolutely neccessary.This is sometimes called the "consequent absolute necessity" view of the atonement."

Again, presuming the bible is true and your authority knows what he's talking about. Why couldn't god just forgive? Three simple words, "I forgive you". Why all the blood shed? Sounds superstitious to me.

Alright so we see that it was totally neccisarry ,however your question is pointless for the simple fact that it makes no sense.

So far your entire argument has been nothing but fallacies. and we "don't see" why god just doesn't say "I forgive you".

"Prior to Jesus Christ being sacrificed as the "Lamb" to end all lambs. People were doing as needed to pay for their sins. I believe, these people were just superstitious"
Where is your evidence that the Jews were sacrificing superstitiously?

By definition: An irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

1. A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
2. A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.

So if you want to play "switching the burden of proof" game. How does sacrificing anything provide forgiveness when three simple words work better?

The whole idea behind the sacrifice was Christ and, it wasn't anything else they sacrificed because they feared the Lord. It is as simple as those two facts.

Why worship a god out of fear? For unproven claims of some afterlife? What evidence is there for an afterlife? What evidence is there for a soul that somehow resembles ourselves and can have cognition without a brain? This all sounds very superstitious to me.

[Jack]

Where is your evidence that the Jews were sacrificing superstitiously?

Exodus 12:1-12

If you believe that god is omniscient, then Jesus' sacrifice wasn't much of a sacrifice. He knew he wasn't going to stay dead. I know of no lambs that were sacrificed that jumped back up after three days resurrected.

[grandpa]

Exodus 12:1-12, If you believe that god is omniscient, then
Jesus' sacrifice wasn't much of a sacrifice.
He knew he wasn't going to stay dead.

That's a very good point. So if Jesus answered "I am the way, the truth, and the light," he was sort of playing a rigged game.

Grandpa h.

[Spurgeon2.0]

My response is simple.
1 Corinthians 1:18-31
18For the word of the cross is (AI)foolishness to (AJ)those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is (AK)the power of God.

19For it is written,
"(AL)I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE,
AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE."

20(AM)Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of (AN)this age? Has not God (AO)made foolish the wisdom of (AP)the world?

21For since in the wisdom of God (AQ)the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, (AR)God was well-pleased through the (AS)foolishness of the message preached to (AT)save those who believe.

22For indeed (AU)Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom;

23but we preach [c](AV)Christ crucified, (AW)to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles (AX)foolishness,

24but to those who are (AY)the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ (AZ)the power of God and (BA)the wisdom of God.

25Because the (BB)foolishness of God is wiser than men, and (BC)the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For consider your (BD)calling, brethren, that there were (BE)not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble;

27but (BF)God has chosen the foolish things of (BG)the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of (BH)the world to shame the things which are strong,

28and the base things of (BI)the world and the despised God has chosen, (BJ)the things that are not, so that He may (BK)nullify the things that are,

29so that (BL)no man may boast before God.

30But by His doing you are in (BM)Christ Jesus, who became to us (BN)wisdom from God, and (BO)righteousness and (BP)sanctification, and (BQ)redemption,

31so that, just as it is written, "(BR)LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST IN THE LORD."


It might be foolishness to you to believe that God existed ,but the bible told me that I would encounter people that say such a thing. Also, don't rip what I say out of context when you try to say I am wrong on it. Also, if you believe that historical documents don't prove anything then you are unintelligent ,and that is me putting it nicely.

If your not going to argue on the basis of history actually being true then I am not going to bother arguing with you. You have not made any points thus far that disprove what I said.

S2.0