Is God 2nd in Power?

[Ruben]

If Jesus gave His life to pay for the sins of the world, then who is demanding the payment, the ‘pound of flesh’ so to speak? If the answer is that God demands a life for the transgression of the law then that means that God has to obey a law or laws but certainly this law. Doesn’t that make the law of demanding a blood sacrifice greater or more powerful than God if God has to obey it?

What if the purpose for Jesus coming to the earth and living and dying was not to ‘pay a price’ for the sins of the world, but instead was by design to reveal the true character of the Father? That would mean that God does not demand the shedding of blood. Jesus’ purpose was to reveal to creation that He considers the lives of fallen humanity worthy of His own.

 

[Vic C.]

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,...

Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Luke 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Heb 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
Heb 9:14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


Ok, that's enough for now.


:angel:

 

[PDoug]

If Jesus gave His life to pay for the sins of the world, then who is demanding the payment, the ‘pound of flesh’ so to speak? If the answer is that God demands a life for the transgression of the law then that means that God has to obey a law or laws but certainly this law. Doesn’t that make the law of demanding a blood sacrifice greater or more powerful than God if God has to obey it?

What if the purpose for Jesus coming to the earth and living and dying was not to ‘pay a price’ for the sins of the world, but instead was by design to reveal the true character of the Father? That would mean that God does not demand the shedding of blood. Jesus’ purpose was to reveal to creation that He considers the lives of fallen humanity worthy of His own.

God's law generally requires that a pure life be sacrificed for the atonement of transgression. The Father who is the God of all Gods, and the master of all things, has bound Himself to the law, and has agreed to live and even be subjected to it. Now if the Father has the power to merely turn away His face from creation, and everything disappears as a result (including the law), do you think that the law is greater than the Father? When the Father makes Himself subject to the law, it does not mean that the law is greater than Him, it just means He has lowered Himself to become bound to the law, for the sake of the trust and well-being of His creation.

Christ came to both pay the price for sin, and to show God's glory (or qualities) in man in the world. The fact that God sent His son as a sacrifice for humanity, and not the angels who fell, shows also God's greater love for his own. However - and this is very important - the fact that God will allow the overwhelming majority of humanity to be condemned, shows as well, God's firm committment to the law.

 

[Quath]

There were other ways to forgive sin that did not involve something dieing. A scapegoat type ceremoney would have been better because it was used to forgive the sins of a large number of people (and the goat was not killed).

When the Israelites were polytheistic, they use to sacrifice humans to the other gods. Yaweh preferred animal sacrifices to human sacrifices and human sacrifice was removed when they went to monotheism.

So a human sacrifice as a ritual that Yaweh would prefer doesn't make much sense. Jesus as a scapegoat (which is not killed) would make more sense maybe.

Quath

 

[PDoug]

There were other ways to forgive sin that did not involve something dieing. A scapegoat type ceremoney would have been better because it was used to forgive the sins of a large number of people (and the goat was not killed).

When the Israelites were polytheistic, they use to sacrifice humans to the other gods. Yaweh preferred animal sacrifices to human sacrifices and human sacrifice was removed when they went to monotheism.

So a human sacrifice as a ritual that Yaweh would prefer doesn't make much sense. Jesus as a scapegoat (which is not killed) would make more sense maybe.

Quath

The offering ceremonies that were done for the forgiveness of sins in Israel, were just outward gestures required by God for repentence. They were essentially no different than circumcision or baptism. These things are meaningless without someone having faith. Remember, Christ came to atone for all sins - including those of the Jews. Therefore when all is said and done, Christ's sacrifice is the only sacrifice that atone's for sins - which a person takes advantage of by having faith. All other sacrifices for sin are just expressions of repentance.

In Leviticus 16, a goat was used as an offering, and another goat (a scapegoat) was used to bear the sins of the people before God. Both were needed by God to ceremoniously handle the sins of the people. The scapegoat alone was not sufficient. Christ played the part of both goats since He both bore the sins of the world before His Father, and was used as a sacrifice for the atonement of sin.

It is important to realize that God views death very differently from most people. God's perspective is from the forrest. Most people's are from the trees. Christ wears the marks of His death as a badge of honor - which are viewed no less than such by the Father Himself. The suffering that Christ underwent is trivial compared to the things He accomplished, and the prizes He gained for Himself: which were rulership over the new creation, and the elevation of man from his state of disgrace, to co-administrator of creation along with Him.

One side comment relating to things you have written several times before: when God destroy's infants and children among evil people, He is actually doing them a favor. The infants and children are automatically saved eternally, and are spared the almost certain condemnation they would suffer, if they were allowed to grow up and live among the evil people God destroyed. One other thing: God destroys evil nations not just out of a sense of justice, but also out of a sense of necessity. Too much evil in the world done by people contaminates creation, and the spirits that make up creation that do their duty (e.g. the sun, the earth) are not able to bear it. God therefor has no choice but destroy evil people, in order to preserve the welfare of creation.

 

[Quath]

One side comment relating to things you have written several times before: when God destroy's infants and children among evil people, He is actually doing them a favor. The infants and children are automatically saved eternally, and are spared the almost certain condemnation they would suffer, if they were allowed to grow up and live among the evil people God destroyed. One other thing: God destroys evil nations not just out of a sense of justice, but also out of a sense of necessity. Too much evil in the world done by people contaminates the fabric of creation, and the spirits that make up creation that do their duty (e.g. the sun, the earth) are not able to bear it. God has no choice but destroy evil people, in order to preserve the welfare of creation.

I have heard this, but I find that it justifies unnecessary cruelity. For example, the children could have been raised by the Israelites. If they needed food, God could have provided manna.

Or if the people had to die, God could have made them all die peacefull in their sleep. Or He could have made them infertile 60 years before they needed to be gone.

That line of thinking is also scary. After all, Christians think that Muslims are raising their children to be Muslims and thus not be able to go to heaven. Therefore, the nicest thing a Christian could do is kill their children so the children go to heaven instead of hell. It is the exact same thinking that justifies the killing of children in the past.

Quath

 

[PDoug]

I have heard this, but I find that it justifies unnecessary cruelity. For example, the children could have been raised by the Israelites. If they needed food, God could have provided manna.

Or if the people had to die, God could have made them all die peacefull in their sleep. Or He could have made them infertile 60 years before they needed to be gone.

That line of thinking is also scary. After all, Christians think that Muslims are raising their children to be Muslims and thus not be able to go to heaven. Therefore, the nicest thing a Christian could do is kill their children so the children go to heaven instead of hell. It is the exact same thinking that justifies the killing of children in the past.

Quath

It is one thing for God to take the lives of children in ways He sees fit, it is another thing for someone claiming to be a Christian, but not bearing any tell-tale fruit, attempting to do the same. God has allowed this world to be very confusing and distressful, because it serves His and the truly elect's purposes. God will however sort everything out in the end, when everyone gets judged.