Question 7 for Christians

[Pandora]

Issac was not a lad of 12 as often shown in movies. He was about 30-33 years old and very willing. Papa was as old as the hills, Issac could of blown him over with his breath, but didn't because they were both willing.

And was he best for the job? I wouldn't question or ask personally. I am sure he must of been.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Christians say Christ died for our sins. An elemental concept of justice to me seems to be that the people who did wrong should suffer the penalty, not someone else. We remember whipping boys, boys raised along with noble children who would take their punishment for them, and scapegoats, people blamed for things for which they aren't responsible - both offensive ideas. Yet Christ died for everyone's sins - why should he have had to do that, and HOW could he have done that if God is just?

Attempting to move back to the original question here instead of the Abraham-Chosen People-Isaac-Sacrifice side discussion...

You are totally correct in your observation, Libsmasher. However, as Christians we believe that God loves us unconditionally but cannot allow full fellowship with us because of our sin. Our sin is the nature of fallen humanity, with the first challenge God's rightful place as our object of reverence, worship, fellowship and obedience. It wasn't about the forbidden fruit - it was telling God that we didn't need him, didn't need to respect him.

We tend to humanize everything. We equate the fallen state of mankind to the kid in the cookie jar - deserving a slap on the hand but not much else. We also equate our sense of justice into our definition and understanding of God.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is/was God incarnate. That he was there in the beginning, and that his death is atonement, restoring us to full fellowship with God, returning us to the status of being part of the family. We believe that God loves us, yet there had to be a method for us to return to grace, a way for us to be restored.

Jesus is that way. Because he loves us with the same perfect love as God the Father, he in essence has "hired" himself to be our defender. He has chosen to lay down his life for us, and to forever remove the challenge of Satan as to our worthiness of God's love. Satan stands and challenges based on our flaws and sins, Jesus says "That's already taken care of."

Our primary human perspective on justice is controlled by our perception of legal justice and on mutual human rights. God's justice cannot be defined by our standards. He is extraordinary, and mankind's separation from him required an extraordinary solution. Jesus gladly has provided that, and willingly gives the gift to any who will ask.

 

[numinus]

But that doesn't explain why he needs to single certain people out.. seems like manipulation of a religion that has been swallowed down by the less dominant families.

If you have read jp2 book, crossings, he spent a considerable amount of time discussing the SIMILARITIES of the world's great monotheistic traditions.

God's message about the human condition was given to everyone -- not only the jews.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Issac was not a lad of 12 as often shown in movies. He was about 30-33 years old and very willing. Papa was as old as the hills, Issac could of blown him over with his breath, but didn't because they were both willing.

And was he best for the job? I wouldn't question or ask personally. I am sure he must of been.

I've heard that story of Isaac being 30 years old, can you quote scripture to back it up?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Attempting to move back to the original question here instead of the Abraham-Chosen People-Isaac-Sacrifice side discussion...

You are totally correct in your observation, Libsmasher. However, as Christians we believe that God loves us unconditionally but cannot allow full fellowship with us because of our sin. Our sin is the nature of fallen humanity, with the first challenge God's rightful place as our object of reverence, worship, fellowship and obedience. It wasn't about the forbidden fruit - it was telling God that we didn't need him, didn't need to respect him.

We tend to humanize everything. We equate the fallen state of mankind to the kid in the cookie jar - deserving a slap on the hand but not much else. We also equate our sense of justice into our definition and understanding of God.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is/was God incarnate. That he was there in the beginning, and that his death is atonement, restoring us to full fellowship with God, returning us to the status of being part of the family. We believe that God loves us, yet there had to be a method for us to return to grace, a way for us to be restored.

Jesus is that way. Because he loves us with the same perfect love as God the Father, he in essence has "hired" himself to be our defender. He has chosen to lay down his life for us, and to forever remove the challenge of Satan as to our worthiness of God's love. Satan stands and challenges based on our flaws and sins, Jesus says "That's already taken care of."

Our primary human perspective on justice is controlled by our perception of legal justice and on mutual human rights. God's justice cannot be defined by our standards. He is extraordinary, and mankind's separation from him required an extraordinary solution. Jesus gladly has provided that, and willingly gives the gift to any who will ask.

All that sounds like an enormous load of twaddle to me. God didn't have to demand blood payment, He could just have forgiven everybody some Sunday morning: "Hello! This is God, I just wanted to say I forgive you all for being the sinful, heathens I made you to be. Have a nice day."

 

[Pandora]

I've heard that story of Isaac being 30 years old, can you quote scripture to back it up?

It is not in scripture unless you add years but the whole story is in the Talmud as well as the story of Abraham breaking the idols of his fathers.

 

[numinus]

All that sounds like an enormous load of twaddle to me. God didn't have to demand blood payment, He could just have forgiven everybody some Sunday morning: "Hello! This is God, I just wanted to say I forgive you all for being the sinful, heathens I made you to be. Have a nice day."

The question you should be asking is do you forgive yourself.

 

[Pandora]

Attempting to move back to the original question here instead of the Abraham-Chosen People-Isaac-Sacrifice side discussion...

The Abraham and Isaac story is actually more about the “dying for sins” topic than you might realize.

There are too many parallels to these two events.


When God spoke to Abraham and told him he needed to go and make this sacrifice. He told him to go to another location that was a 3 day journey. He sacrificed daily there at home but this time it had to be at a certain location. It’s the same location, 1400 years later Jesus died in the crucifixion.

God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." Isaac was not Abrahams only son. He had an older son Ishmael, by his wife’s handmaiden Hagar. But those same words are used later to describe Jesus

Isaac was about 33, as was Jesus. Both carried their own wood up to the sacrifice location. In Abraham’s case, before he did it, an angel told him not to do it. The angel said that God himself would provide the sacrifice, and then Abraham saw a ram caught in the thickets, and then he gave a ram for the sacrifice instead. 1400 years later God did provide the final sacrifice.

Before this all happened he had promised the world would be blessed through his son Isaac, just as the world was blessed through Jesus.

Abraham had probably more faith in God than any one, it stands to reason he believed that if he had to go through with this then God would resurrect Isaac, he told his wife they would both be returning. He had no reason to believe his son would die when he had not yet married or had children. God promised through Isaac’s seed the world would be blessed.

There are other parallels but these are the high lights. The story of Abraham and Isaac was a shadow of something to come. The crucifixion.

 

[Dr.Who]

Christians say Christ died for our sins. An elemental concept of justice to me seems to be that the people who did wrong should suffer the penalty, not someone else. We remember whipping boys, boys raised along with noble children who would take their punishment for them, and scapegoats, people blamed for things for which they aren't responsible - both offensive ideas. Yet Christ died for everyone's sins - why should he have had to do that, and HOW could he have done that if God is just?

If it were as simple as that then everyone would die for their own sins. Every person on Earth would die and not live forever in heaven. Does that sound better than God Himself dying for others sins so that they can live in heaven?

 

[Dr.Who]

All that sounds like an enormous load of twaddle to me. God didn't have to demand blood payment, He could just have forgiven everybody some Sunday morning: "Hello! This is God, I just wanted to say I forgive you all for being the sinful, heathens I made you to be. Have a nice day."

Is it really true that he did not have to demand a blood payment? Do you know more than God? God says that He did have to demand a blood payment. Each person who sinned owed his own blood. A basic concept is that justice demands that a penalty be paid. If no penalty is expected then God would not be just. If you discovered that someone had raped or beaten someone you knew would you just say "Don't worry about it." or would you expect that some justice was required?

That being said if God only dished out justice and did not also extend grace then He would not be loving. Holiness demands that God cannot be in communion with those that are unholy (and being out of communion with God is the spiritual definition of death). Justice demands that the guilty owe a penalty. And Love demands that God provide an answer to the dilemma created by the first two.

All sin is the result of a lack of faith. The answer to the dilemma was that God would forgive anyone who had faith. If He were to announce from the heavens in a loud booming voice that all were forgiven (regardless of wheather or not anyone had faith) then there would be no room for anyone to have faith. That would be self-defeating. Faith is believing in the evidence of things unseen not the believing in the things that are seen. That is secular humanism. Just kidding.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Is it really true that he did not have to demand a blood payment? Do you know more than God? God says that He did have to demand a blood payment. Each person who sinned owed his own blood. A basic concept is that justice demands that a penalty be paid. If no penalty is expected then God would not be just. If you discovered that someone had raped or beaten someone you knew would you just say "Don't worry about it." or would you expect that some justice was required?

That being said if God only dished out justice and did not also extend grace then He would not be loving. Holiness demands that God cannot be in communion with those that are unholy (and being out of communion with God is the spiritual definition of death). Justice demands that the guilty owe a penalty. And Love demands that God provide an answer to the dilemma created by the first two.

All sin is the result of a lack of faith. The answer to the dilemma was that God would forgive anyone who had faith. If He were to announce from the heavens in a loud booming voice that all were forgiven (regardless of wheather or not anyone had faith) then there would be no room for anyone to have faith. That would be self-defeating. Faith is believing in the evidence of things unseen not the believing in the things that are seen. That is secular humanism. Just kidding.

A long post of twaddle. Putting human limitations on God is hardly a rational process. My reaction to rape would be human, God's reaction to original sin or whatever is perhaps going to be "Godly"? What's that? Beats me, but demanding INNOCENT blood is right out of the human-stupidity playbook and I don't buy any of that nonsense when it's applied to God. Silly me.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

The Abraham and Isaac story is actually more about the “dying for sins” topic than you might realize.

There are too many parallels to these two events.


......

There are other parallels but these are the high lights. The story of Abraham and Isaac was a shadow of something to come. The crucifixion.

I understand what you're saying, and I understand fully the commonality between the two. The primary significance is to underline the theme of God's relationship with mankind.

I didn't intend to blow off the whole discussion or to invalidate the Isaac/Abraham situation, but to attempt to answer the original question. The crux of Libsmasher's original post/question was

Yet Christ died for everyone's sins - why should he have had to do that, and HOW could he have done that if God is just?

As the title stated, this is a question he is asking Christians. As Christians, we can appreciate the parallels between the two. We can also appreciate the details of prophecy, and Jesus Christ's fulfillment of them. But neither answers the core question. Those issues may become helpful in extending understanding and growth in faith, but I'm not sure is helpful in answering that question.

I do with that Libsmasher would jump in here somewhere and either comment, query further or challenge if his initial question goes unanswered.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

All that sounds like an enormous load of twaddle to me. God didn't have to demand blood payment, He could just have forgiven everybody some Sunday morning: "Hello! This is God, I just wanted to say I forgive you all for being the sinful, heathens I made you to be. Have a nice day."

You have my sympathies.

 

[Dr.Who]

A long post of twaddle. Putting human limitations on God is hardly a rational process. My reaction to rape would be human, God's reaction to original sin or whatever is perhaps going to be "Godly"? What's that? Beats me, but demanding INNOCENT blood is right out of the human-stupidity playbook and I don't buy any of that nonsense when it's applied to God. Silly me.

But He did not demand innocent blood. I stated very clearly in my last post that He demanded the blood of those who were guilty. "Each person who sinned owed his own blood."

When Jesus paid the price for others' with innocent blood that was voluntary.