Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Quotidian]

Wish there was a 'Good Posting' icon on this forum, but in its absence - good posting!

-- Updated November 3rd, 2013, 6:34 pm to add the following --

I say that because this post considers the question deeply from the viewpoint of its symbolism, and is also informed by a spiritual view of life and the formative role of suffering.

Beautifully said.

[enegue]

After reading the comments, it's my understanding that you Christians admit that the act of ritual sacrifice is superficially similar to other heathen examples of animal sacrifice, but there is a theological basis to the Jewish sacrifice that, despite all appearances, sets it apart as uniquely rational. I hope I'm understanding you correctly.

Is a nuclear bomb the same as a nuclear reactor? They both function according to the same principle, but the intended purpose of one is not the same as the intended purpose of the other.

Aren't they at least as faithful as Abraham, who was willing to sacrifice his son Isaac, whereafter God blessed him for it?

Again, you don't seem to be interested in the detail. Did God allow Abraham to sacrifice his son? The answer is, no. Why not? So that Abraham would know that Yahweh was different to all the gods he had previously heard about. Abraham could say to himself, "This new God didn't want my child. He wanted my heart, and now both He and I know, He has it."

If you find any sacrifice of one's child to be deplorable I think God's sacrifice of Jesus is worst of all, since God is the one who makes all the rules -- he is the one who refused to forgive us freely; he is the one who demanded blood sacrifice in the first place. God himself created the circumstances that led to him sacrificing his son -- therefore his murder of Jesus is far worse than that of the Phoenician parents.

You have a twisted view of what was/is happening. If Jesus was taken and presented to the priests, and his throat cut, and his blood collected and sprinkled on the altar in Jerusalem, and his body flayed and roasted on the fire, then you would have cause to detest the God of the Bible, but we know this didn't happen, so you are working yourself into a lather about nothing.

Christ Jesus says:
Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
-- Matthew 20:28

St Paul reiterates:
Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; 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.
-- Ephesians 5:1,2

Who gave Jesus to be a sacrifice? "The Son of man came ... to give his life ..." and "Christ ... hath given himself". To whom did he give himself? To anyone who wanted to do what was necessary and sufficient to maintain a relationship with God (atonement). Remember how the sacrifice was the means by which the priesthood was sustained in the OT, well nothing has changed in the NT. Jesus body (as the incarnate Word of God) is the food that sustains the priesthood (each and every believer).

Furthermore, I think there is one simple point that we are neglecting to consider here. It is my understanding that a ritual sacrifice involves three parties: the person(s) performing the sacrifice, the victim of the sacrifice and the recipient of the sacrifice. In the case of Jewish animal sacrifice, the performer of the sacrifice was the worshipper, the victim of the sacrifice was the animal the worshipper had chosen, and the recipient of the sacrifice was God. Now lets turn to God's sacrifice: God himself was the performer, Jesus was the victim, but who was the recipient? Whom exactly was God sacrificing Jesus to? Himself? That's kind of odd, isn't it? -- a deity making a sacrifice to himself. Does God pray to himself also?

Can you see how you have gotten yourself all tied up in knots?

There are not three participants, but four. There is the one who presents the sacrifice, the sacrifice itself, there is the priest who accepts the sacrifice and performs the ceremony, and there is God. The statues and ordinances of the Law provided a mechanism by which the ordinary Joes in Israel could be participants in the maintenance of the nation's relationship with God (atonement). As I have already mentioned, the animals weren't just slaughtered, they were the principle sustenance that kept the priests and their families alive. Without the willing participation of the ordinary Joes, the whole system would cease to function, and Israel would lose their connection to God, which is what we see recorded many times in the OT narrative.

Cheers,
enegue

[Fanman]

Pastabake,

Exactly what was God's self sacrifice?

That he suffered, and died for a reason that was beneficial to others.

God being omnipotent knew exactly what was going to happen. Hardly what one can call a legitimate sacrifice ... more like part of his plan.

And? if Jesus' sacrifice was part of God's plan for salvation, how does this make Jesus' sacrifice illegitimate?

By being negligent he allowed the snake into the garden ... so everything that follows is Gods fault. The sacrifice of Jesus should be seen more as an attempt by God to atone for his earlier failure and the subsequent mess ups ... like the Genocide of the flood etc.

You are ignoring the idea that God has given his creations free will. Therefore, it was the will of the serpent to deceive Eve. That God allowed the serpent to be in the garden, is a demonstration that he will not contravene his own laws. Thus, the serpent is responsible for its own actions. Why would God need to atone for what man is responsible for? The sacrifice of Jesus was to give us as a means of atoning for our sins, without the requirement of the written Mosaic law.

With regards to the flood, you said it yourself: “God being omnipotent”. Therefore, being omnipotent, why should he continually allow evil to persist before him, especially when he knows that there was nothing which could change the inclination of man's evil nature? You have to also take into account, that there were evil spirits living upon the earth, and at that time, they could exist in human form, and thus had hybrid children with the women of earth, which were called “Nephilim”. Imagine, the extent of that depravity, vice and debauchery... God had to end it somehow, and he did so by a method which allowed him to start from scratch. Not to totally destroy the earth, but to cleanse it with water. Hallelujah!

---

Mysterio448,

When man sins against God, it is like we owe him a debt. To give an analogy, say you owe me $1,000 but you are unable to pay the debt. Since I'm so generous I decide to completely, gratuitously forgive you of the debt. But I can't just simplyforgive. First, I have to go to my bank and withdraw $1,000 from my account, and then I take the $1,000 and deposit it back into my account. Thus I, in my infinite mercy, have forgiven you. That is essentially the same thing God did. Does that sound sensible to you?

Hey, I was expecting you to respond to my post? Anyway, what you say here, I think, is a demonstration of what I said about you not being spiritually or celestially educated, and therefore not spiritually or celestially aware / inclined. Your analogy pertains to a terrestrial situation, but the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is celestial in nature. Thus, your superimposing of a terrestrial analogy, onto a celestial situation, is of course going to lead you into a misunderstanding / misconception.

1. You have to consider that God, is a God of righteousness and justice, therefore if you are guilty of something you have to answer for it.

2. In his mercy, he has given us a method by which we can be forgiven, should we choose to accept it.

3. God's best wish, is that we can dwell with him, but in order to dwell with him we must be sacred, and this can only be attained through belief in Jesus Christ.

There is no terrestrial analogy which you can apply to this (point 3 especially), because it is a celestial state of affairs. If you want to learn about the logic of the sacrifice of Christ, you are going to have to put-aside many of your preconceptions. Even then you might not agree with it, but you might, as you claim you want to, understand it.

[Mysterio448]

What does your point about “everyone else” performing ritual sacrifice of animals pertain to?

I was just suggesting that it's a bit disingenuous to think that there was something special about Jewish animal sacrifice. By practicing this ritual, the Hebrews proved that they were very much a people of their time and place. They didn't perform sacrifices because God told them to, they performed sacrifices because everyone else was doing it. Attributing all this noble theological stuff to the ritual just sounds like revisionist BS to me.

(Nested quote removed.)

Again, you don't seem to be interested in the detail. Did God allow Abraham to sacrifice his son? The answer is, no. Why not? So that Abraham would know that Yahweh was different to all the gods he had previously heard about. Abraham could say to himself, "This new God didn't want my child. He wanted my heart, and now both He and I know, He has it."

What about Jephthah's daughter?

(Nested quote removed.)

Can you see how you have gotten yourself all tied up in knots?

There are not three participants, but four. There is the one who presents the sacrifice, the sacrifice itself, there is the priest who accepts the sacrifice and performs the ceremony, and there is God. The statues and ordinances of the Law provided a mechanism by which the ordinary Joes in Israel could be participants in the maintenance of the nation's relationship with God (atonement). As I have already mentioned, the animals weren't just slaughtered, they were the principle sustenance that kept the priests and their families alive. Without the willing participation of the ordinary Joes, the whole system would cease to function, and Israel would lose their connection to God, which is what we see recorded many times in the OT narrative.

Cheers,
enegue

I admit I forgot to mention the role of the priest, but that point is moot. The main point that I was making, and which you have neglected to address, was about the strangeness of God sacrificing his son Jesus to himself. What are your thoughts about this? I always understood sacrifice, much like prayer, to be an exclusive prerogative of the human worshipper. A deity has many prerogatives, but prayer and ritual sacrifice are notable exceptions. I think this is an important theological issue that, strangely, I don't see anyone discussing. What does it mean for a god to perform a sacrifice, period, let alone perform a sacrifice to himself?

[Fanman]

Mysterio448,

I was just suggesting that it's a bit disingenuous to think that there was something special about Jewish animal sacrifice. By practicing this ritual, the Hebrews proved that they were very much a people of their time and place. They didn't perform sacrifices because God told them to, they performed sacrifices because everyone else was doing it. Attributing all this noble theological stuff to the ritual just sounds like revisionist BS to me.

Well, sacrifices in which the innocent are slain (be it animal or people) were carried out throughout the world shall we say. What makes the Jewish sacrifices seem 'special' is that according to Biblical scripture, they were carried under the instruction of God, in that the Jews were given the 'proper' instructions of how to prepare and carry-out the ritual by God, through Moses, God's chosen prophet. Whereas, gentiles did not commit sacrifices by those same methods, and did so without any spiritual instruction. Jews were not for example, instructed to sacrifice human beings, and they only used certain animals that were considered absolutely clean. You don't have to believe that God instructed them on how to do so, or that there was any nobility in the ritual, as you're entitled to your beliefs and opinions. However, I think that only similarity between the sacrifices that the Jews made, and the sacrifices of the Phoenicians and Aztecs is that something innocent was killed to take the place of something guilty, in order to appease a deity. The specifics / preparations of the respective rituals were completely different.

[Pastabake]

However, I think that only similarity between the sacrifices that the Jews made, and the sacrifices of the Phoenicians and Aztecs is that something innocent was killed to take the place of something guilty, in order to appease a deity.

This is of course exactly the point that Mysterio448 has been making all along, and is the only issue of any importance.

The specifics/preparations are nothing more than pantomime, traditions and the OCD's of the priesthood, and have nothing to do with the inherent logic of the act itself.

[Mysterio448]

(Nested quote removed.)

This is of course exactly the point that Mysterio448 has been making all along, and is the only issue of any importance.

The specifics/preparations are nothing more than pantomime, traditions and the OCD's of the priesthood, and have nothing to do with the inherent logic of the act itself.

Exactly. All the details and protocol involved in the ritual was much ado about nothing.

[enegue]

What about Jephthah's daughter?

LOL. If you have searched this example out on your own, you know that it's the only one of its kind in the Bible. If you were a scientist and your results contained an outrider such as this, you would then investigate the cause. Did you do that?

The case of Jephthah's daughter is an aberration, and if you take the time to read the entire book of Judges you will understand the reason for it. Firstly, it is not an example of God calling someone to sacrifice his child:
And Jephthah made a vow to the LORD, and said, “If You will indeed deliver the people of Ammon into my hands, then it will be that whatever comes out of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the people of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up as a burnt offering.”
-- Judges 11:30-31

It was entirely Jephthah's idea. Why would he think such a thing would please God? The book of Judges is a chronicle of the behaviour of Israel during a time when they had abandoned the laws of God in preference for the ways of the gods of Caanan.
So the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD. They forgot the LORD their God, and served the Baals and Asherahs.-- Judges 3:7

If you go to Wikipedia and find the article on Baal, you will read:
Through analogy and through the belief that one can control or aid the powers of nature by the practice of magic, particularly sympathetic magic, sexuality might characterize part of the cult of the Baʿals and ʿAshtarts. Post-Exilic allusions to the cult of Baʿal Pe'or suggest that orgies prevailed. On the summits of hills and mountains flourished the cult of the givers of increase, and "under every green tree" was practised the licentiousness which was held to secure abundance of crops. Human sacrifice, the burning of incense, violent and ecstatic exercises, ceremonial acts of bowing and kissing, the preparing of sacred cakes (see also Asherah), appear among the offences denounced by the post-Exilic prophets;

All those behaviours were an abomination to the God of Israel, which you yourself know because you are familiar with the books of Moses, right? So, the only rational conclusion one can come to in regard to Jephthah is that his understanding of God had been utterly corrupted, as had the whole nation's, and If he did indeed give his daughter up as a sacrifice, then he was clearly doing so in obedience to Baal and not Yahweh.

If you then take the time to read in Leviticus what was required in order to offer a "burnt offering", where do you imagine Jephthah would find a priest of Yahweh who would do such things to a human being. Finding a priest of Baal, on the other hand, would not have been so difficult.

I admit I forgot to mention the role of the priest, but that point is moot. The main point that I was making, and which you have neglected to address, was about the strangeness of God sacrificing his son Jesus to himself.

God didn't sacrifice his son. He allowed him to choose TO BE the spotless Lamb THAT WE could offer up as a sacrifice. You are trying too hard to misunderstand the principle.

Cheers,
enegue

[Misty]

My question is this: if you are a Christian, do you agree with the basic logic of sacrifice? The way I understand it, the very core of the Christian faith rests on this logic. If you do not agree with the logic of sacrifice, then how do you reconcile that with your Christian faith?
(Nested quote removed.)

The "sacrifice" Jesus made was leaving his place in heaven at the right hand of God and becoming a man to be the first man to be born of the water and the spirit. As a man he was born of water and when resurrected he was born of the Spirit.

[Fanman]

Pastabake and Mysterio448,

What makes you guys certain that the specifics / preparations of ritual sacrifices where not important, or relevant to actual act of sacrifice itself? What is your reasoning?

[Misty]

God didn't sacrifice his son. He allowed him to choose TO BE the spotless Lamb THAT WE could offer up as a sacrifice. You are trying too hard to misunderstand the principle.
(Nested quote removed.)

enegue,

I cannot believe you said that. Jesus was murdered. So, God accepted a murdered sacrifice that "WE" offered? Please read my previous post.

Misty

[Mysterio448]

Pastabake and Mysterio448,

What makes you guys certain that the specifics / preparations of ritual sacrifices where not important, or relevant to actual act of sacrifice itself? What is your reasoning?

I am really kind of bewildered by your question. Your reasoning seems very circular. You say that Jewish animal sacrifces were superior to Gentile animal sacrifices because the Jews performed sacrifices as instructed by God. You also say that the Gentiles did not have spiritual instructions to direct their own sacrifices -- How do you know this? Have you studied the sacrifice protocols of other cultures? What objective standard or reference point do you employ to judge the quality of a sacrifice? How do you compare one sacrifice to another? God told the Jews how to perform sacrifices and they performed the sacrifices; the Gentile gods told the Gentiles how to perform their sacrifices and they performed the sacrifices. I don't see any grounds for comparison here.

To be honest with you, I think that ritual sacrifice is the one of the finest examples of religious foolishness. God commanding the Israelites to perform these meticulous sacrifices is analogous to me commanding you to pat your head and rub your stomach while standing on one foot: if you perform the task exactly as instructed would that make the task any less arbitrary and absurd? God's reasons for demanding sacrifices and for stipulating the methods of performing the sacrifices are mysteries understood only by God himself. The ritual possesses no instrinsic, practical value and means nothing to anyone except the initiates of the respective religion; therefore it is pointless to do any kind of comparisons of sacrifice protocols.

Furthermore, while you seem to praise the symbolic merit of this ritual, I find its implications deplorable. The way I see it, when a person performs a sacrifice, he is basically taking his own mistakes out on another creature. He is saying that even though he is the one who screwed up, it will be another individual who suffers the consequences of his actions. Why do I need to own up to my mistake if I can just sacrifice something or someone? I am also put off by the concept of using an innocent creature in the symbolism. Isn't this the same kind of logic used by witches who seek to please the demons by shedding the innocent blood of virgin damsels?

[Fanman]

Mysterio448,

I am really kind of bewildered by your question. Your reasoning seems very circular. You say that Jewish animal sacrifces were superior to Gentile animal sacrifices because the Jews performed sacrifices as instructed by God. You also say that the Gentiles did not have spiritual instructions to direct their own sacrifices -- How do you know this? Have you studied the sacrifice protocols of other cultures? What objective standard or reference point do you employ to judge the quality of a sacrifice? How do you compare one sacrifice to another? God told the Jews how to perform sacrifices and they performed the sacrifices; the Gentile gods told the Gentiles how to perform their sacrifices and they performed the sacrifices. I don't see any grounds for comparison here.

Hmm okay, let us review what I stated:

Fanman wrote:
Well, sacrifices in which the innocent are slain (be it animal or people) were carried out throughout the world shall we say. What makes the Jewish sacrifices seem 'special' is that according to Biblical scripture, they were carried under the instruction of God, in that the Jews were given the 'proper' instructions of how to prepare and carry-out the ritual by God, through Moses, God's chosen prophet. Whereas, gentiles did not commit sacrifices by those same methods, and did so without any spiritual instruction. Jews were not for example, instructed to sacrifice human beings, and they only used certain animals that were considered absolutely clean. You don't have to believe that God instructed them on how to do so, or that there was any nobility in the ritual, as you're entitled to your beliefs and opinions. However, I think that only similarity between the sacrifices that the Jews made, and the sacrifices of the Phoenicians and Aztecs is that something innocent was killed to take the place of something guilty, in order to appease a deity. The specifics / preparations of the respective rituals were completely different.

Nowhere in my comment, did I state that: “Jewish animal sacrifces were superior to Gentile animal sacrifices because the Jews performed sacrifices as instructed by God”. Therefore, the premise of your argument is not based upon reality. My comment that: “gentiles did not commit sacrifices by those same methods, and did so without any spiritual instruction”. Was said in relation to your summary / belief that God, and therefore no intelligent spirit-beings exist; not my own beliefs. Thus, my mistake was perhaps in not making that clear distinction. I, personally do not claim to know that Gentiles were not instructed on how to make sacrifices by spirit-beings. However, if they were instructed on the procedure by spirit-beings, the different specifics / preparations and animals / people which they used, would indicate that the Jews and the Gentiles, were being instructed on ritual sacrifice by different spirit-beings. Therefore, your second line of argument here, is based upon a false premise. I don't think that it is possible for me to have an objective standard or point of reference to judge a sacrifice by, because the basis of my opinions and standards is subjectivity, but if I attempted to do as you ask, I would insist that no human beings were sacrificed, and upon certain animals to be sacrificed, which were not exotic, easily obtainable, not at risk of becoming an endangered species and easy to kill. The quality of the animal would depend upon what it was fed, its age (that it had the chance to experience some life), that it was physically clean and unblemished. In regards to your comparison of one sacrifice to another, you can gather the answer to this question from what I've stated above, in that a poor quality or wrong (morally and actually) sacrifice, so to speak, would be the opposite of everything that I stated. As to your final premise, it is difficult, because it assumes that God exists and that gods exist also. However, according to the Bible, only one God exists, you are arguing from a Biblical perspective, therefore you cannot bring other gods into the equation without your argument becoming nonsensical and breaking-down. You might not feel that specifics / preparations are relevant, but do you not see the fundamental difference between sacrificing human-beings and sacrificing certain types of animals?

To be honest with you, I think that ritual sacrifice is the one of the finest examples of religious foolishness. God commanding the Israelites to perform these meticulous sacrifices is analogous to me commanding you to pat your head and rub your stomach while standing on one foot: if you perform the task exactly as instructed would that make the task any less arbitrary and absurd? God's reasons for demanding sacrifices and for stipulating the methods of performing the sacrifices are mysteries understood only by God himself. The ritual possesses no instrinsic, practical value and means nothing to anyone except the initiates of the respective religion; therefore it is pointless to do any kind of comparisons of sacrifice protocols.

Well you're entitled to you opinions, but you are again superimposing a terrestrial event upon a celestial one, by means of analogy, which does in my opinion, demonstrate a lack of spiritual understanding. If I can perform the mundane task you stipulate, it does not, to my knowledge, have any spiritual implications; whereas sacrificing an innocent life, in order for it to absorb the consequences of one's sins, is huge spiritually. I don't observe any mysteries in the ritual of sacrifice, it is a spiritual transaction. Again, if you don't believe that the ritual has any intrinsic and practical value that's up to you. However, being of a religious ilk, I would argue that the sacrificial protocols are important, because they constitute the nature of the sacrifice, therefore comparison is not pointless.

Furthermore, while you seem to praise the symbolic merit of this ritual, I find its implications deplorable. The way I see it, when a person performs a sacrifice, he is basically taking his own mistakes out on another creature. He is saying that even though he is the one who screwed up, it will be another individual who suffers the consequences of his actions. Why do I need to own up to my mistake if I can just sacrifice something or someone? I am also put off by the concept of using an innocent creature in the symbolism. Isn't this the same kind of logic used by witches who seek to please the demons by shedding the innocent blood of virgin damsels?

Well, I believe in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ; not only as symbolic, but as an actuality, and I have great reverence for the actions that he carried out, because he also demonstrated the many positive attributes of God, such as mercy, compassion and kindness. Furthermore, if I commit a crime against God, and rather than myself and others having to face the consequences of my own sin(s), I have to sacrifice a lamb, that has experienced the best life it can, that I would kill and eat anyway, I would certainly have no severe qualms about doing so, except the remorse of having to kill an animal. Indeed, it is a light thing, when balanced with the consequences of sin(s) upon oneself and other people; which goes to further demonstrates how easily God is willing to forgive people. A lamb, in my opinion does not have the same value as an individual (meaning a human-being), but imagine the value of Jesus Christ to God, his own celestial son. Yet he sacrificed him, so that mankind could be forgiven of our sin(s), and considering the magnitude of that sacrifice, do you actually expect God to thus accept anyone who rejects Jesus, when knowledge of him so so widely available? You may be misunderstanding things, the Jews had to admit their sins before God, and ask him for forgiveness, before sacrificing the animal. It was not a trivial case of just killing an animal when you did something wrong. Yes, sacrificing a life is unfortunate, but again I believe that the sacrifice is actual; not only symbolic, therefore it has great value. I have heard that witches sacrifice innocent virgins to Satan, but the logic is not same, because they do not do so in order to obtain forgiveness for their sins from God. Apparently, they do so to obtain things that are considered to be valuable in this world. Therefore, the innocent blood that witches shed, is not for the purposes of dispensation, it is a perverse, logically inverse and corrupted method of 'sacrifice'; committing murder, to obtain gain; not forgiveness. It is using innocent-human-blood, to purchase riches (or whatever) from a spirit-being. The terrestrial animal equivalent (to help you relate), is killing elephants for their ivory.

P.S. For someone who claimed to be "really kind of bewildered" by my question, you answered it pretty extensively.

[enegue]

I cannot believe you said that. Jesus was murdered. So, God accepted a murdered sacrifice that "WE" offered? Please read my previous post.

Well, Jesus has this to say on the matter:
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd. Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it 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.
-- John 10:16-18

Do you see those words, Misty, "No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself."? Was it then, murder?

In the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus said to the disciples who wanted to protect him:
And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?
-- Matthew 26:51-54

Do you believe Jesus could have summoned twelve legions of angels? I do. Was it then, murder?

On the night before he was taken,
These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.
-- John 17:1-5

The Romans and the Jewish religious leaders were the instruments of Jesus' destruction, but he allowed it to happen. He did so in order that he would be glorified, lifted up unmistakably for the whole world to see and thus forever be drawn to its attention.

Stuart Townend wrote this lovely song that clearly declares who was truly responsible for Jesus' death.

Behold the Man upon a cross,
My sin upon His shoulders
Ashamed I hear my mocking voice,
Call out among the scoffers

It was my sin that held Him there
Until it was accomplished
His dying breath has brought me life
I know that it is finished

I will not boast in anything
No gifts, no power, no wisdom
But I will boast in Jesus Christ
His death and resurrection

Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom

Cheers and God bless,
enegue

[Misty]

God didn't sacrifice his son. He allowed him to choose TO BE the spotless Lamb THAT WE could offer up as a sacrifice
(Nested quote removed.)

enegue,

I was referring to the above post by you saying "WE" (humans) could offer up as a sacrifice. Then in your last post to me you offered where Jesus laid down his life, which I agree with, but "WE" humans did not offer up Jesus or that negates his will to give up his human life. Are you saying Jesus was not murdered by humans?