How often should I sacrifice a beast to appease God?

  • 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.
BuffyLou said:
No.

He was a human.

He was a sacrifice.

What am I missing here?
Click to expand...
You are missing that the animal sacrifices were type and shadow. There is a likeness. But it is not the same thing. Like I wrote to you before, the water giving rock in Horeb was a type of Jesus too. And that doesn't mean that Jesus was made of granite and was a literal fountain.
 
SoulWeaver said:
You are missing that the animal sacrifices were type and shadow. There is a likeness. But it is not the same thing. Like I wrote to you before, the water giving rock in Horeb was a type of Jesus too. And that doesn't mean that Jesus was made of granite and was a literal fountain.
Click to expand...
You've lost me.
 
BuffyLou said:
'Where did you get it from?'

'I got it from you're focusing on whom had him killed'

Forgive me, but your suggesting I use 'you're' does not make sense here.
Click to expand...
Here are my words: "How could you possibly get that from my post?"

Here is your response: "Your focusing on whom it was that had him killed."

Had I written, "From where did you get that?" your response would have made sense. However, that is not what I wrote.

Had you written, "I got it from your focusing on whom it was that had him killed," it would have made sense as it would have directly connected your statement to my question, and the "your/you're" discussion could have been avoided. However, that is not what you wrote.

As it is, I read your response as a statement about my intent, not as a direct response to my question. So, I apologize for misunderstanding what you were trying to say. Sorry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mii, SoulWeaver and EleventhHour
BuffyLou said:
You've lost me.
Click to expand...
What is it that you don't understand? Think "symbol" or "picture" instead of type and shadow, if that confuses you. Slain innocent lamb was chosen to picture the Messiah because God knew He would be killed by the world without any guilt. But Jesus was not ritually killed in the temple, as a sacrificial lamb would be. So there is semblance, but it is not the same thing, and therefore it is wrong to use the term you want to use. Simarly the rock in Horeb was struck by Moses and water poured out so people survived. In the same way Jesus was struck and it resulted in outpouring the Holy Spirit aka water of life. A semblance to present a picture of events that must come, but not the same, Jesus didn't literally water people with physical water. The whole Old Testament is loaded with events and motifs that were symbols of things to come.
 
Dino246 said:
Here are my words: "How could you possibly get that from my post?"

Here is your response: "Your focusing on whom it was that had him killed."

Had I written, "From where did you get that?" your response would have made sense. However, that is not what I wrote.

Had you written, "I got it from your focusing on whom it was that had him killed," it would have made sense as it would have directly connected your statement to my question, and the "your/you're" discussion could have been avoided. However, that is not what you wrote.

As it is, I read your response as a statement about my intent, not as a direct response to my question. So, I apologize for misunderstanding what you were trying to say. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Yes it becomes a verb in the full sentence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dino246
Dino246 said:
Here are my words: "How could you possibly get that from my post?"

Here is your response: "Your focusing on whom it was that had him killed."

Had I written, "From where did you get that?" your response would have made sense. However, that is not what I wrote.

Had you written, "I got it from your focusing on whom it was that had him killed," it would have made sense as it would have directly connected your statement to my question, and the "your/you're" discussion could have been avoided. However, that is not what you wrote.

As it is, I read your response as a statement about my intent, not as a direct response to my question. So, I apologize for misunderstanding what you were trying to say. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Okay cool. I thought you didn't understand the difference between 'your' and 'you're'.
 
SoulWeaver said:
What is it that you don't understand? Think "symbol" or "picture" instead of type and shadow, if that confuses you. Slain innocent lamb was chosen to picture the Messiah because God knew He would be killed by the world without any guilt. But Jesus was not ritually killed in the temple, as a sacrificial lamb would be. So there is semblance, but it is not the same thing, and therefore it is wrong to use the term you want to use. Simarly the rock in Horeb was struck by Moses and water poured out so people survived. In the same way Jesus was struck and it resulted in outpouring the Holy Spirit aka water of life. A semblance to present a picture of events that must come, but not the same, Jesus didn't literally water people with physical water. The whole Old Testament is loaded with events and motifs that were symbols of things to come.
Click to expand...
He may not have been killed according to his own ethnic tradition, however, that does not in itself mean his life was not sacrificed.
 
BuffyLou said:
He may not have been killed according to his own ethnic tradition, however, that does not in itself mean his life was not sacrificed.
Click to expand...
He did give His life for us, but He was not sacrificed in Hebrew ritual custom though to be called human sacrifice. By what religion's custom would you consider Jesus a human sacrifice?
 
BuffyLou said:
No.

He was a human.

He was a sacrifice.

What am I missing here?
Click to expand...
Most human sacrifices stay dead.
Substitution execution.
One man freely taking the place of another out of love.
One perfect in exchange for all the imperfect.
"No greater love has any man then this, that he lay down his life for his friends"
Jesus did it for all those who would become his friends, His family in God.
He did it so they could live in spirit to God.
He was the only one who could.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldethennew, SoulWeaver and Dino246
Lion222 said:
Most human sacrifices stay dead.
Substitution execution.
One man freely taking the place of another out of love.
One perfect in exchange for all the imperfect.
"No greater love has any man then this, that he lay down his life for his friends"
Jesus did it for all those who would become his friends, His family in God.
He did it so they could live in spirit to God.
He was the only one who could.
Click to expand...
Reanimation does not refute the fact that a sacrifice took place.

Not there's any historical evidence of his coming back to life, but that's something else altogether.
 
Truth7t7 said:
I sacrificed a bull tonight, 24oz porterhouse, good!
Click to expand...
The Lord does not accept the blood of animals to feed His, that is what the pagans did. Isaiah 1:11 "The multitude of your sacrifices-- what are they to me?" says the LORD. "I have more than enough of burnt offerings, of rams and the fat of fattened animals; I have no pleasure in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.

The Lord gave His Son to pay for our sins, and it is only through him that that payment is effective. It has always been so. When the symbolic blood was given without knowing God gave blood on the altar (Christ) and they were to give up their sins and accept that payment for them, it was useless. Read all about the sacrificial system in the first chapters of Leviticus.

Lev. 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood and I have given it for you upon the altar to make an atonement for your sins.

If you are using a bull instead of Christ for your sacrifice, you deny Christ.
 
BuffyLou said:
Reanimation does not refute the fact that a sacrifice took place.

Not there's any historical evidence of his coming back to life, but that's something else altogether.
Click to expand...
Of course not that would negate what he has done for you.
Your suffering took place on Him.
Your freedom was bought with His blood because of His loving kindness.
You can take it lightly if you like, i do not.
You can reject it also, you are free to do that, I do not.

Historical evidence is of no importance to those who know Him today.
What is evidence?
Now Thomas called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe.” Eight days later, His disciples were once again inside with the doors locked, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe - John 20:24-27
 
Lion222 said:
Of course not that would negate what he has done for you.
Your suffering took place on Him.
Your freedom was bought with His blood because of His loving kindness.
You can take it lightly if you like, i do not.
You can reject it also, you are free to do that, I do not.

Historical evidence is of no importance to those who know Him today.
What is evidence?
Now Thomas called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe.” Eight days later, His disciples were once again inside with the doors locked, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe - John 20:24-27
Click to expand...
You acknowledge his death was for a purpose.

Well, he is welcome to appear to me and allow me to do the same.
 
BuffyLou said:
You acknowledge his death was for a purpose.

Well, he is welcome to appear to me and allow me to do the same.
Click to expand...

Each thing happens in its season.
Do you believe you are treated unjustly because Jesus didn't appear physically to you like to Thomas?
 
Though the OP is focused on the sacrifice, it is the resurrection that sets it apart from any sacrifice before or ever. In the following verse Jesus remarks that no man can or will take His life.

John 10:18: "No man taketh it (His life) from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."

The context of these remarks is important: Jesus is still debating with religious critics who are angry over His recent miracle (John 9). There, Jesus gave sight to a man born blind, which sparked debates that did not end well for the local religious leaders.

Jesus continues to explain His role as "the Good Shepherd," which includes His willingness to die for the sake of His sheep. That sacrificial love, Jesus says, is a reason He has special favor with God the Father (John 10:17; Philippians 2:9). It's possible, in some sense, that those listening might have assumed Jesus prior statement was just an assumption. In other words, that Jesus was "willing" to die, not that He "would die." Talk of Christ's death is something Jesus' closest followers often struggled to accept (Mark 8:31–33).

Jesus makes it clear that His role as "the Good Shepherd" (John 10:10–14) and "the Door" (John 10:7–9) not only includes an actual death, it also includes resurrection. That death is entirely voluntary—it is not something into which Jesus is being coerced (Matthew 26:53). And it will result in a resurrection, based on divine power and authority (John 2:19–21). In this relatively brief statement, Jesus claims to have power over life and death—even His own—as granted to Him by God. He predicts His own death and revival.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back