How often should I sacrifice a beast to appease God?
- Thread starter BuffyLou
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
"You're", not "your". God's plan was fulfilled perfectly. Jesus was innocent of all wrongdoing and died so that we might have life.
You say that you're here to learn about Christianity, but you are not demonstrating even the least bit of teachability. Why don't you accept the answers you receive? Why do you keep harping about Jesus' death being "human sacrifice" when plainly, that is the wrong term for it?
You say that you're here to learn about Christianity, but you are not demonstrating even the least bit of teachability. Why don't you accept the answers you receive? Why do you keep harping about Jesus' death being "human sacrifice" when plainly, that is the wrong term for it?
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Then your understanding of grammar is faulty. The word that sentence needs is "You're", not "your". If you had written, "... focus is on..." then the correct word would be "your," but you wrote, "... focusing on ..." which requires "you're" as in "you are".
Then you are satisfied with a half-truth. That's a dangerous way to live.
Jesus was God incarnate - in the flesh. Nothing about His death was a merely human effort to appease a god. "Human sacrifice" is simply the wrong concept, as I have stated already.
Drop it already.
Then you are satisfied with a half-truth. That's a dangerous way to live.
Jesus was God incarnate - in the flesh. Nothing about His death was a merely human effort to appease a god. "Human sacrifice" is simply the wrong concept, as I have stated already.
Drop it already.
-
2
- Show all
To say "Jesus offering Himself for all mankind" isn't the same as the term you insist on "human sacrifice". The second term is semantically loaded with pagan religion context and means something different. So this term is not correct in Christian context, in fact it's completely disagreeable with Christian context. So please stop, you won't get anyone to agree and walk with you in that understanding, no matter how ignorant.
Animals never had actual power to wash sins. God only responded to the faith that He would wash them if the person was honestly contrite, not because of the animal. Unlike the pagans worshiping rocks and statues who did genuinely believe such things in not knowing better, the prophets and many other Israelites of strong faith knew that Spirit of God forgave sins, and that animal sacrifice was only type and shadow. Type and shadow, does not mean literally equal. Rock that gave the people water in Horeb also was a type and shadow of Jesus, which does not mean Jesus was made of granite and literally watered the crops.
Animals never had actual power to wash sins. God only responded to the faith that He would wash them if the person was honestly contrite, not because of the animal. Unlike the pagans worshiping rocks and statues who did genuinely believe such things in not knowing better, the prophets and many other Israelites of strong faith knew that Spirit of God forgave sins, and that animal sacrifice was only type and shadow. Type and shadow, does not mean literally equal. Rock that gave the people water in Horeb also was a type and shadow of Jesus, which does not mean Jesus was made of granite and literally watered the crops.
I am not the one that makes silly acquisitions or being rebuked and not learning to show their agreement to another. I am not the one who said without parables the signified tongue of God. Christ spoke not.
I think I have a understanding of the purpose of parables. They as a manner of prophecy teach us how to hear God called walking by faith. Mixing that eternal faith with the temporal things seen. It is necessary to rest with Him who works in us .
Those who do not mix faith do not hear the gospel understanding of rest. Christ is our Sabbath rest .We rest in His finished works. . not seen . We are the temple.
Hebrews 4 King James Version (KJV) Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
I think I have a understanding of the purpose of parables. They as a manner of prophecy teach us how to hear God called walking by faith. Mixing that eternal faith with the temporal things seen. It is necessary to rest with Him who works in us .
Those who do not mix faith do not hear the gospel understanding of rest. Christ is our Sabbath rest .We rest in His finished works. . not seen . We are the temple.
Hebrews 4 King James Version (KJV) Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
No, it is not. Your following sentence demonstrates it; "You were focusing" is correct grammar for the past tense, and "You are focusing" is correct grammar for the present tense. "You're" is a contraction of "You are".
No, it doesn't.
"Your focusing having been interrupted, you demonstrated some irritation" would be correct, because it makes "Your focusing" part of a dependent clause. The sentence in question, "Your focusing on whom it was that had him killed," does not have "Your focusing" as part of a dependent clause.
"Your" is always possessive. "You're" is never possessive.
It's time to concede and accept the correction.
No, it doesn't.
"Your focusing having been interrupted, you demonstrated some irritation" would be correct, because it makes "Your focusing" part of a dependent clause. The sentence in question, "Your focusing on whom it was that had him killed," does not have "Your focusing" as part of a dependent clause.
"Your" is always possessive. "You're" is never possessive.
It's time to concede and accept the correction.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Meaningless gobbledegook. Try learning proper English.
Actually, you are, because the words, "parables the signified tongue of God" is not a word combination I would use except when quoting you, and it isn't in Scripture.
Yes; an incorrect understanding.
Scripture tells us plainly that parables were used to hide the truth from the unbelieving, not to "teach us how to hear God called walking by faith."
You have taken individual verses or statements from Scripture, discarded the context in which they were written or spoken, and made up your own beliefs around them. You need instruction in English, and then you need instruction in hermeneutics.
Actually, you are, because the words, "parables the signified tongue of God" is not a word combination I would use except when quoting you, and it isn't in Scripture.
Yes; an incorrect understanding.
Scripture tells us plainly that parables were used to hide the truth from the unbelieving, not to "teach us how to hear God called walking by faith."
You have taken individual verses or statements from Scripture, discarded the context in which they were written or spoken, and made up your own beliefs around them. You need instruction in English, and then you need instruction in hermeneutics.
If you were carefully reading Leviticus you would have noticed it is not the death of the animal that is of interest to God. The exchange is life for life, and the life is in the blood. The death of the animal is more incidental as a means of getting the blood, and the life in the blood was then transfered to the furniture and implements in the temple so that God's presence could continue to dwell.
You speak of pagan sacrifices where the death appeases an angry deity as if that's what's happening in the Biblicaal picture of atonement, but that is not what is being pictured.
Jesus was a sacrifice in the sense that His blood cleanses and purifies the human temple, but the death of Christ is said to be sin reaching full sinfulness. Sin was so complete that men sought to destroy the source of all good simply because He was good and testified to the sin of men.
God's love for us is such that even that height of rebellion does not preclude us from reconcilliation.
You speak of pagan sacrifices where the death appeases an angry deity as if that's what's happening in the Biblicaal picture of atonement, but that is not what is being pictured.
Jesus was a sacrifice in the sense that His blood cleanses and purifies the human temple, but the death of Christ is said to be sin reaching full sinfulness. Sin was so complete that men sought to destroy the source of all good simply because He was good and testified to the sin of men.
God's love for us is such that even that height of rebellion does not preclude us from reconcilliation.
-
2
- Show all