RE: Jesus Died So That You May Live!
I have always had a problem with this theory of Jesus dying so that we may live. The whole concept that ‘God’ had to do a blood sacrifice of his son in order to save humanity seems contrived?
I have always understood the God to be omnipotent and in control of all that is, was and will be. The idea that this Omnipotent God had to sacrifice his son for humanity makes me wonder exactly who or what required this of The God???
What rule required this blood sacrifice from a God that had omnipotence over everything?
Are you suggesting that this God was just like Moloch or Baal? That this God required child sacrifices as they did? Or that another Omnipotent being greater than God made this a necessary condition for the saving of Humanity?
And this is the same God of Moses and Jacob? The one that declares that there are no other Gods except God. That we should not take the likeness of creation and make it or him a partner with God (just referring to the first 2 commandments)??
I am truely lost with all of the machinations of Athanasius’ Creed? (Oh yea after the Nicaean Debacle of 325 it was ever after referred to as the Nicaean Creed) Arius seemed to have a better handle on things but they decided to brand him an apostate shed some more blood (numbered in the thousands) on that account also. I am sure this God…and his Son…really enjoyed that blood sacrifice in their name.
And the ritual of drinking of the Blood of Jesus and the Eating of his body sure sounds like a tendency to Pagan Cannibalism to me also.
Don’t misjudge me…I am a true believer in the God of Moses and Jacub….and accept the Son of Mariam as the Messiah to the children of Israel…the rest of it though…just does not fit.
Fair enough, I sort of understand where you are coming from.
I trust the Bible so I can only go by what is taught. I don't have a problem with Jesus giving himself as a sacrifice but I think it would be wrong to say that it was required of God to make a sacrifice. No one requires God to do anything but He requires it of us. Maybe we are just looking at it from different angles.
The penalty of sin is death. We have sinned against God so we can only pay with our life. Jesus lived in perfect obedience to God and therefore was sinless and death was not required of him, but he gave his life anyway and died in our place to atone for our sins. God did not require child sacrifices at any time but he does require an atonement for our sins or else we must face death and separation from God.
Also, through the sacrifice Jesus fulfilled prophecy and showed his complete obedience and trust in God till the end. Because Jesus trusted God and stayed faithful, God raised him from the dead and exalted him. This conclusively showed all that Jesus was the Christ and that the God of Jesus was the true God.
I agree that Arius seemed to have a much better understanding of things but it's hard to say since most of his writings were destroyed along with him.
I don't follow the Catholic literal understanding of the eating of flesh and drinking of blood. He did say, "this do in remembrance of me." Jesus said, I am the bread of life. He also says to Satan "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." and Jesus is God's word to man living in the flesh. Perhaps it all ties together.
That's my thoughts on the matter at least. It is something I have to seek more understanding in for sure.
Your response shows patience and a degree of objectivity. I respect that!
What is considered as Arianism is a strong departure from Trinitarianism of present day Christianity. Or from my point of view, Trinitarianism is a strong departure from the teachings of the Son of Mary.
As for the book you call the Bible I would say that there is no definitive copy of this work that can be claimed as the actual word of God. All versions that I know of are third person renderings of what men say that men say that God said or willed. The Second Council of Nicaea assembled a collection of writings that they concluded should be the 'Word of God' and called it the common book or in Latin, Biblios Vulgatus. Current versions of the Bible such as the King James or Jerusalem Bible differ greatly from this original work.
Taking the Bible with it's numerous versions, consistant inconsistencies and obvious problems with natural or scientific phenomena it becomes very hard for any scholarly student with personal integrity to accept this book at face value. This Bible, in essence, is the words of men claiming to report on the history of those supposedly associated with God.
Though claiming to be the word of God, there is no First Person dialog in this book that actually claims to be from God.
Once again, please do not mistake me for someone that does not Believe in God, for I most certainly do. I also believe in the Virgin Birth of the Son of Mariam and that the Son of Mariam was in fact the Massiah to the Children of Israel.
I do not though, call the Son of Mariam the Son of God, not do I view him as co-equal with the God. Remember the first and second commandments of God and then it is easy to understand why I say so.
Thank you for the conversation.
And may God give us all guidance to the truth.
Ibrahim