Genesis 3:21 refers to Adam and Eve being given their fallen corporal bodies (they were angel-like pre-fall). God doesn't sacrifice to Himself, that's ridiculous.
But I guess it doesn't matter in free Bible interpretation class. "It's just me and muh Bible, boy". I've always said the sola scriptura protestant approach is an atheist-making machine.
God sacrificed His Son, the second Adam, to atone for our sins resulting from the fall of man. Man brought the fall through his own free volition but it was God who became man, who died willingly and defeated death for all mankind.
One can't understand the NT without the OT. It's a reference to Genesis where Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son. Moreover, practice of sacrificing to clean oneself from sin is described in Leviticus. Jesus' death (the death of His human nature only) is the ultimate sacrifice and the end of that practice and just like Isaac wasn't killed, He died but got resurrected. Christ is the fulfillment of all prophesies and He's the final testament between God and man - the promise for man's salvation from death and eternal life in God.
No book has the level of continuity the Bible has, even if it weren't the word of God, it would still be an unmatched literary masterpiece. But as with all written word it needs the correct interpretation which is only possible within the true unchanged early Church tradition.
There is very little 'level of continuity' in the bible when read literally and refusing to SEE the continuity....how sacrifice in the time of Leviticus or anyone else was a lesser understanding of old by primitive people and must be discarded and understood for the symbolic analogy it is.
Until sacrifice of self is understood and accomplished, ritual is needed to assimilate.
There is no 'true UNCHANGED Church tradition except for the common source of all religion.
What book shows continuity by showing this common source?
Throw down your snake by reading this book and try to critique it.
Are you up to the challenge?
This book doesn't negate a thing. It leaves that to others.
There is very little 'level of continuity' in the bible when read literally and refusing to SEE the continuity
Who told you it's supposed to be red what you call "literally"? The Bible is a liturgical text and it's part of a tradition that instructs how it's to be interpreted. It doesn't interpret itself, neither it can be interpreted correctly outside of that tradition.
There is no 'true UNCHANGED Church tradition except for the common source of all religion.
There is in the face of the Orthodox Christian Church. What is the common source of all religion, how do you have knowledge of it and what is religion for that matter? How do you classify a certain set of beliefs and traditions as religion and what's the common ground between such contradictory worldviews (like Hinduism and Christianity for example)?
Are you up to the challenge?
I've red a lot of gnostic texts doing free interpretation of scripture. Even if I'm willing to suspend my belief and be open about it, what would convince me this take is the correct one?
Such comparative religion arguments go like this: Christian theology has a lot of similarities with ancient Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian theology therefore it is connected, influenced and borrows from those. This is called a genetic fallacy - assuming things that appear to be related to be related based on the superficial similarity. The truth is people who interpret Christianity like this don't do an internal critique because they either are not well versed in the Christian theology or because it serves them better to take things out of the proper context distorting the actual belief system and cherry pick the superficial similarities to other religions.
You’ve answered on whose behalf Jesus was sacrificed but the question is who was he sacrificed TO?
When the lord god of Israel asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it was a sacrifice to him - the lord god of Israel. All sacrifices are offerings to some god or other, so to whom did god offer up his son as a sacrifice?
All sacrifices are offerings to some god or other, so to whom did god offer up his son as a sacrifice?
That's a premise. In Christianity, sacrifice acquires another meaning. The Son sacrifices Himself as flesh (yet He's God), and thus transforms our understanding of sacrifice - it's no longer understood strictly as sacrifice of flesh on the altar to God. As everything in the NT - the old is incorporated and made anew without contradicting the OT. God of the NT and OT is the same but the context is different.
Christ doesn't sacrifices Himself to alleviate God the Father's anger caused by Adam disobeying Him (although such a belief in penal substitution is widely held by protestants). This is impossible because all persons of the Trinity share the same will and essence. The Son incarnates, becomes man and defeats death, so that man can gain eternal life and become like God (theosis).
If I sacrifice myself for the well-being of my loved ones, do I offer myself to a god?
Genesis 3:21 refers to Adam and Eve being given their fallen corporal bodies (they were angel-like pre-fall). God doesn't sacrifice to Himself, that's ridiculous.
But I guess it doesn't matter in free Bible interpretation class. "It's just me and muh Bible, boy". I've always said the sola scriptura protestant approach is an atheist-making machine.
Since this god is certainly said to sacrifice his "only BEGOTTEN' (which means things).....who did he sacrifice him to?
If god doesn’t sacrifice to himself then to whom did he give Jesus?
Who was Jesus sacrificed to?
God sacrificed His Son, the second Adam, to atone for our sins resulting from the fall of man. Man brought the fall through his own free volition but it was God who became man, who died willingly and defeated death for all mankind.
One can't understand the NT without the OT. It's a reference to Genesis where Abraham is asked to sacrifice his son. Moreover, practice of sacrificing to clean oneself from sin is described in Leviticus. Jesus' death (the death of His human nature only) is the ultimate sacrifice and the end of that practice and just like Isaac wasn't killed, He died but got resurrected. Christ is the fulfillment of all prophesies and He's the final testament between God and man - the promise for man's salvation from death and eternal life in God.
No book has the level of continuity the Bible has, even if it weren't the word of God, it would still be an unmatched literary masterpiece. But as with all written word it needs the correct interpretation which is only possible within the true unchanged early Church tradition.
There is very little 'level of continuity' in the bible when read literally and refusing to SEE the continuity....how sacrifice in the time of Leviticus or anyone else was a lesser understanding of old by primitive people and must be discarded and understood for the symbolic analogy it is. Until sacrifice of self is understood and accomplished, ritual is needed to assimilate.
There is no 'true UNCHANGED Church tradition except for the common source of all religion.
What book shows continuity by showing this common source?
Throw down your snake by reading this book and try to critique it.
Are you up to the challenge?
This book doesn't negate a thing. It leaves that to others.
https://kupdf.net/download/jesus-christ-sun-of-god-ancient-cosmology-and-early-christian-symbolism-by-david-r-fideler-ocr_58a100e36454a7335db1eb87_pdf
Who told you it's supposed to be red what you call "literally"? The Bible is a liturgical text and it's part of a tradition that instructs how it's to be interpreted. It doesn't interpret itself, neither it can be interpreted correctly outside of that tradition.
There is in the face of the Orthodox Christian Church. What is the common source of all religion, how do you have knowledge of it and what is religion for that matter? How do you classify a certain set of beliefs and traditions as religion and what's the common ground between such contradictory worldviews (like Hinduism and Christianity for example)?
I've red a lot of gnostic texts doing free interpretation of scripture. Even if I'm willing to suspend my belief and be open about it, what would convince me this take is the correct one?
Such comparative religion arguments go like this: Christian theology has a lot of similarities with ancient Greek/Roman/Egyptian/Babylonian theology therefore it is connected, influenced and borrows from those. This is called a genetic fallacy - assuming things that appear to be related to be related based on the superficial similarity. The truth is people who interpret Christianity like this don't do an internal critique because they either are not well versed in the Christian theology or because it serves them better to take things out of the proper context distorting the actual belief system and cherry pick the superficial similarities to other religions.
You’ve answered on whose behalf Jesus was sacrificed but the question is who was he sacrificed TO?
When the lord god of Israel asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, it was a sacrifice to him - the lord god of Israel. All sacrifices are offerings to some god or other, so to whom did god offer up his son as a sacrifice?
That's a premise. In Christianity, sacrifice acquires another meaning. The Son sacrifices Himself as flesh (yet He's God), and thus transforms our understanding of sacrifice - it's no longer understood strictly as sacrifice of flesh on the altar to God. As everything in the NT - the old is incorporated and made anew without contradicting the OT. God of the NT and OT is the same but the context is different.
Christ doesn't sacrifices Himself to alleviate God the Father's anger caused by Adam disobeying Him (although such a belief in penal substitution is widely held by protestants). This is impossible because all persons of the Trinity share the same will and essence. The Son incarnates, becomes man and defeats death, so that man can gain eternal life and become like God (theosis).
If I sacrifice myself for the well-being of my loved ones, do I offer myself to a god?