God's mercy and compassion.

[Elijah John]

Psalm 103:13-14

As a father has compassion on his children, so YHVH has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust.

1) How does this verse square with the Evangelical notion that one must be perfect or believe that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins in order to experience God's mercy and compassion?

2) How does this verse square with the notion that the "God of the Old Testament" is a God of wrath, and not a God of Fatherly compassion?

3) Is the model of God as Father compatible with the doctrine that He needs blood in order to forgive? How so?

Please address any combination of the above.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Forgiveness without blood appeasement does not preclude the idea that our actions have consequences. But what is the remedy when we stray? No good Father requires blood. The remedy is repentance, apologies, sometimes restitution or legal consequences, depending on the nature of the offense.

Jesus took it all for us. There is no greater sacrifice to lay down one’s life for a friend. That’s in Scripture. Laying down one’s life means death – death is bloody. If Scripture praises those willing to give their life for a friend how much more would it mean for Jesus to give His life for us – complete strangers? He is demonstrating the perfect sacrifice. How do you not see that?

Apology? Legal consequence? Apology can make someone feel better, but it doesn’t fix the damage. No, I’m sorry it makes sense to me that it would not have sufficed for Jesus to have just come to earth and told us all if we just apologized it would be all good. Reparation had to be made. And legal consequences is reducing something to the law. Jesus’ entire message was that we are called to a higher law. Maybe a ticket could suffice for breaking some earthly law, but it is silly to not understand the greater significance of God’s law and what is at stake.

I submit you do not understand the significance of Jesus’ death. You want to rewrite God’s plan of salvation. You want to tell God that it isn’t necessary to sacrifice His son because it doesn’t sit well with you.

RightReason wrote:


Quote:
3) Is the model of God as Father compatible with the doctrine that He needs blood in order to forgive? How so?


I think that verse squares with the truth that God sent His only son as our savior in the manner He did because that is what has publicly been revealed to us via Scripture. Could God have saved the world in another way? Of course, but He didn’t. …..


Revealed to you perhaps, but not to me.

Revealed to Christendom.

What has been revealed to me are passages like Hosea 6.6, Micah 6.6-8, the Parables, the Beattitudes, the Lord's Prayer, and many other passages of Scripture which speak of a more enlightened, less prmiitive and babaric way of forgiveness.

Those passages do not contradict the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And you don’t get to pick and choose what parts of Scripture you are cool with and which parts your aren’t. We don’t get to say we want God’s love without sacrifice. We want the feast without the proceeding famine. We want the wedding celebration prior to the wedding. It doesn’t work that way.

No blood, just simple repentance based means of atonement.

Awwww how sweet, now read the entire Bible . . . I think you underestimate sin and how much it offends God.

Why do so many cling to the primitive and babaric notions about God when Scripture itself offers clear and more enlightned alternatives?

I cling to all of Scripture, but you would rather sweep the unpleasant parts under the rug. I ignore nothing. The barbaric OT description is part of the Bible for a reason. It helps show us man’s journey and how far we have come. It doesn’t get anymore enlightening than to recognize our own primitive and barbaric behavior. You have allowed the 1970’s pseudo psychology, “I’m ok. You’re ok.� Influence your religious worldview. The truth is, “I’m not ok. And neither are you.� We are barbarians. We are all responsible for Jesus’ crucifixion through our own sins. We have personally contributed to His scourging. But Jesus comes showing us He is willing to take all of that on our behalf. Yes, it will be bloody, but that is how serious our offenses have been and how much He loves us. The passion of our Lord is actually a perfect example and representation of love and ultimate triumph of Good over Evil. I think you miss it.

RightReason wrote:


Blood sacrifices were described to us for God’s people from the beginning. I guess I would ask you how would one not see the parallel that now Jesus once and for all through His Blood paid for our sins? We no longer have to make animal sacrifices because of Jesus’ Blood.


God's people the Jews were already outgrowing animal sacrifices and learning about things like simple repentance, prayer, etc. with the help of the Prophets. Nothing about "believing in the blood" of the Messiah to replace animal sacrifices.

How do you reconcile then the parallels? Those aren’t simply a coincidence you know. Jesus Himself said, “I am the lamb of God who came down from heaven. . . unless you eat my body and drink my blood. JESUS is talking about BLOOD!!! Why do you ignore it? He is the sacrificial lamb? LOL! What do you think that means?

**********
Jesus is referred to as the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29, Revelation 5:6-13) because as the spotless Lamb He was offered to God the Father as the spotless lamb sacrificed for the atonement of our sins and our reconciliation with God.

JOHN 1:29: "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!�

REVELATION 5:6, 11-13: And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain… Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!" And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all therein, saying, "To him who sits upon the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might for ever and ever!"

For this reason, St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 5:7-8:

For Christ, our paschal [Passover] lamb, has been sacrificed. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival (feast).

http://www.catholic365.com/article/1907 ... arist.html

Again, I would have to ask you what you think all this means?

RightReason wrote:


Scripture refers to Christ as the lamb of God – the unblemished Passover lamb to be slaughtered. Scripture is pretty clear that we are to recognize this is the compassionate manner in which God has chosen for His people. And Scripture goes on to have Jesus’ very own words, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.� –Matthew 26. What more do you need?


What more do I need? I need a harmony of ideas.

I can see nothing more harmonious than Jesus being the final and ultimate sacrifice representing the New Covenant. The symbolism, the poetry, the significance oozes harmony!

What you mean is you need God’s plan of salvation to match your puppy dogs and ice cream version. You are like those revisionists who want to change the gospel to only reflect heaven and skip every passage about hell. You are of that liberal theology who insisted on changing the words of Amazing Grace because you find the lyrics offensive.

The original lyrics were . . . that saved a wretch like me

But many felt the author’s words too harsh. We need not consider ourselves wretched, so they changed the words to . . . that saved and set me free

^This is what you are trying to do. Can’t you see how problematic that is? First, it is changing the original words/meaning of the song! We don’t get to re-write the song because it is too hard for us to stomach.

Christ’s Church has been combating watered down theology throughout history. There are always those coming along saying the crucifix bothers them. It makes them think of things they don’t want to think about. Again they want the feast without acknowledging the proceeding famine.

But what we have instead are conflicting notions within the Bible regarding the means of forgiveness.

I don’t see conflicting notions in the Bible. I only see conflicting notions outside the Bible and outside the Church.

Sure, your interpretation and the Church's interpretation is Scriptural.

Thank you.

But so is mine and that of more theologically liberal Christians.

Seriously not sure about that. Just being able to point to a Bible verse does not make something Scriptural. The Bible must be read as a whole and interpreted correctly.

More enlightened ideas such as the Father is merciful by nature and does not need to be bought with blood in order to forgive.

How about the enlightened idea that God is merciful by nature and can bring about salvation in any manner He chooses? Perhaps in His wisdom and love and mercy He knows exactly what He needed to do and what is in our best interest. Is that enlightened enough for you?

That's what I get from the Bible, and what I get from God-given Reason.

But it isn’t. What you have described denies what we are told from the Bible. If you want to ignore half the Bible you are free to do so, however not sure why then you would believe any of it.

Here is a nice simple explanation below regarding your question . . .

_________________


Why did Jesus have to die for our sins?

Answer:

In one sense, Jesus did not have to die for our sins. God could have chosen any method for reconciling the human race back to himself.

Thomas Aquinas noted that, while anything God chose would have sufficed for our salvation, the Passion was the perfect means because:

• "Man knows thereby how much God loves him, and is thereby stirred to love him in return."

• "Thereby he set us an example of obedience, humility, constancy, justice, and the other virtues displayed in the Passion, which are requisite for man's salvation."


• "By this man is all the more bound to refrain from sin, according to 1 Corinthians 6:20: 'You are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body.'"

• It redounded to man's greater dignity, that as man was overcome and deceived by the devil, so also it should be a man that should overthrow the devil; and as man deserved death, so a man by dying should vanquish death."


This is a great mystery of faith.

https://www.catholic.com/qa/why-did-jesus-have-to-die

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 21 by RightReason]

Then what do you make of the fact that Jesus never mentions "the blood" in the Lord's prayer, the Beattitudes, and the Parables. I.e. the bulk of his teachings. He mentions forgiveness in all those places, (mercy) but not "the blood". Why is that?

Seems to me that you are picking and choosing as well. Or letting the RCC do that for you. It's a matter of emphasis. The RCC emphasizes "the blood" while pretty much ignoring the bulk of Jesus teachings. At least for the purposes of formulation of doctrine.

Notice the Creed makes no mention at all of Jesus teachings. They could have included a line such as "he taught Love of God and neighbor, which is the Law and the Prophets". But they apparently do not consider Jesus teachings important enough to mention?

Far too much emphasis on teachings about Jesus, who he supposedly is, Paul's theological interpretation of his crucifixion, etc, at the expense of the teachings of Jesus himself.

[otseng]

What you mean is you need God’s plan of salvation to match your puppy dogs and ice cream version. You are like those revisionists who want to change the gospel to only reflect heaven and skip every passage about hell. You are of that liberal theology who insisted on changing the words of Amazing Grace because you find the lyrics offensive.

Moderator Comment

Please debate without commenting about another poster.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[RightReason]

[Replying to Elijah John]

Seems to me that you are picking and choosing as well. Or letting the RCC do that for you. It's a matter of emphasis. The RCC emphasizes "the blood" while pretty much ignoring the bulk of Jesus teachings. At least for the purposes of formulation of doctrine.

Notice the Creed makes no mention at all of Jesus teachings. They could have included a line such as "he taught Love of God and neighbor, which is the Law and the Prophets". But they apparently do not consider Jesus teachings important enough to mention?

Far too much emphasis on teachings about Jesus, who he supposedly is, Paul's theological interpretation of his crucifixion, etc, at the expense of the teachings of Jesus himself.

This is your response to my post? I showed you why the Passion of Christ is Scriptural and makes sense as God’s plan. I showed you how Jesus dying for us does not in any way negate God’s love and mercy for us, rather demonstrates it and used Scripture to prove it. And you stick to your straw man argument about the Church not being enlightened and woke to (in your own words) a more liberal theology?

Seems to me that you are picking and choosing as well.

Not at all. I have no problem with the beatitudes or the Our Father or any of the other passages you mention. I accept and believe them all. You, however, want to ignore all the verses about blood, hell, death. LOL! But they are there. Why re-write history? Why accept/believe in half the Bible – makes no sense.

Notice the Creed makes no mention at all of Jesus teachings.

Wow you really like arguments from silence. The creed doesn’t mention fornication or adultery either, but God wasn’t exactly cool with those things.

They could have included a line such as "he taught Love of God and neighbor, which is the Law and the Prophets". But they apparently do not consider Jesus teachings important enough to mention?

Except these lines cover that,

. . . I believe in God, the Father almighty,

I believe in Jesus Christ, God's only Son, our Lord,

I believe in the Holy Spirit,

I believe in the holy Catholic Church


If we believe in someone, it encompasses we believe what they say/taught/did.


Do you even know the purpose of creeds? Crikey. Perhaps you should understand that before you are ready to throw out something before you understand what it is for.

From a well written article titled, What's the Point of Creeds? by PETER KREEFT

***********


Faith has two dimensions: the objective and the subjective. Creeds express these two dimensions: I believe in God. There is an I, a believing subject, and there is God, the object of belief. There is the psychology of believing, which is something in us, and there is the theology of belief, which is the Truth believed. There is the eye, and there is the light. And woe to him who mistakes the one for the other.

. . . God providentially arranged for the great creeds of the Church to be formulated in ages that cared passionately about objective truth. By modern standards, they ignored the subjective, psychological dimension of faith.

But we moderns fall into the opposite and far worse extreme: we are so interested in the subject that we often forget or even scorn the object. Psychology has become our new religion, as Paul Vitz and Kirk Kilpatrick have both so brilliantly shown.

Yet it's the object, not the subjective act, of faith that makes the creeds sacred. They are sacred because Truth is sacred, not because believing is sacred. Creeds do not say merely what we believe, but what is. Creeds wake us from our dreams and prejudices into objective reality. Creeds do not confine us in little cages, as the modern world thinks; creeds free us into the outdoors, into the real world where the winds of heaven whip around our heads.

What is the object, the Truth? Saint Thomas says that the primary object of faith is not words and statements but God himself. We believe in God. Further, as Christians we know God most fully in Christ, God incarnate, and as Catholics we know Christ through Holy Mother Church and her creeds.

When human reason raved, in the Arian heresy, that Christ could not possibly be both fully human and fully divine, Athanasius stood against the world; today we know Christ as he really is because of Athanasius and his creed.

When contemporary forms of the same heresy water down the strong meat of Christ, the Church again braves the media, the mouth of the world, and calmly thunders the full truth about Christ. True, it is Christ rather than words that is the primary object of the Christian's faith, but what Christ? Here words are crucial.


Intellectualism misses the core of faith, both objectively and subjectively. Objectively, the core of faith is God, who is a Person, not a concept. Subjectively, the core of faith is the will, not the intellect. Though informed by the intellect, it is the will that freely chooses to believe.

Anti-intellectualism also misses the core of faith, both objectively and subjectively. Objectively, because its faith has no object. It calls faith an experience (the faith experience) a term never used by our Lord, Scripture, the creeds, or the popes. Modern people are constantly saying, Have faith! But faith in what or whom? They often mean have faith in faith. But faith in faith in what?

The Church has always had a conservative head and a liberal heart, and the world has never understood her, just as it never understood Christ.

Creeds are to the head what good works are to the heart: creeds express truth, the head's food, as good works express love, the heart's food. Both are sacred.

If there is any doubt about the need for creeds, it can be settled by fact: the fact that the Church established by Christ, the Church Christ promised to guide into all truth, has in fact formulated and taught creeds.

Each of the Church's creeds was written in response to a heresy, to combat it not by force but by truth, as light combats darkness. Creeds are truth in labeling. Those who disbelieve in truth or scorn it, or who disbelieve in our ability to know it, see creeds as power plays.

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/re ... reeds.html

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 24 by RightReason]

Yes, Creeds settle disputes and put "heretics" in their place. They also proclaim what unites a given group of believers. As for proclaiming "Truth"? THAT is debatable, especially here on this site.

But Creeds also tell us what a Church considers most important. In this case, Jesus Divine nature, and his work on the cross.

But that seems to be at odds with what Jesus himself taught, believed, and emphasized:..:

Mark 12.29-31

“The most important one,� answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’There is no commandment greater than these.�

THAT was Jesus' "Creed". Or as close as we have to what the real, historical Jesus actually believed and embraced.

The Shema is antithetical to Trinitarianism, the Nicene or the Athanasian Creed.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 24 by RightReason]

Why is it that in the bulk of Jesus teachings, The Lord's prayer, The Beattitudes, and the Parables, Jesus teaches the Father's forgiveness, without tying that forgiveness to "the blood"? Why speak of forgiveness so often with no mention of "the blood"? Unless or course, the author of Hebrews is wrong when he says "without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins". Jesus himself contradicts this notion by his teachings.

I'll continue to ask until you give me a good answer. You say that you "don't have a problem" with those teachings, but please demonstrate how those passages harmonize with the notion of blood-atonement. I don't see how you've done so, yet. If they harmonize, why no mention of "the blood" along with the Father's mercy?

My position, is that after Jesus unexpected martyrdom, his followers shifted the focus from Jesus' teachings about the Father's love and mercy, to the meaning of his death and resurrection. From Jesus teachings of love of God and neighbor, (which is worth more than all the burnt offerings) to how his death on the cross supposedly appeases the Father, who does not drink blood, nor does He eat flesh. (Psalm 50.13, just one of many anti-sacrifice verse that orthodoxy ignores, because those verses do not fit it's blood-atonement narrative and theology.)

Also, where do you get the idea that I don't believe in God's rewards and punishments in the afterlife?

Also, just because I indicated that I agree with much of what theologically* liberal forms of Christianity teach, does not mean I do not embrace ethics, or believe in Divine retribution, etc., or that I favor an "anything goes" type of Christianity. THAT is a straw man you've constructed, intentionally or not. And for the record, I differ with many liberal Protestants on political matters, I find myself more aligned with Catholics and Evangelicals on such matters as traditional marraige and pro-life issues.

(*key phrase, THEOLOGICALLY liberal, as opposed to politically liberal. One does not necessitate the other)

And you say we must take the Bible as a whole. OK, let's do that. How do you harmonize Exodus 21.20-21 to God's love and compassion? You can look it up if you'd like, but the passage basically indicates that it's OK to keep and beat slaves half-to-death as long as they don't die right away. Why? Because Moses regarded these human beings, (human beings who are also made in God's image)as "property". Ironic, considering the Hebrew people were just liberated from slavery by God Himself. But don't it beat all, Moses goes and gives permission (presumably from God) to go ahead and enslave others and mistreat them, horribly.

If you claim that you believe in the Bible as a whole, that includes verses like this. Do you believe that passage came from God?

Or from the fallible "Moses".

[Wootah]

Wow you really like arguments from silence.

Moderator Comment

Less personal please. Unless you really like mod comments .

Alternate: That is an argument from silence.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[showme]

Psalm 103:13-14

As a father has compassion on his children, so YHVH has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust.

1) How does this verse square with the Evangelical notion that one must be perfect or believe that Jesus died to "pay for" our sins in order to experience God's mercy and compassion?

2) How does this verse square with the notion that the "God of the Old Testament" is a God of wrath, and not a God of Fatherly compassion?

3) Is the model of God as Father compatible with the doctrine that He needs blood in order to forgive? How so?

Please address any combination of the above.

That God is patient, and wishes everyone to come to the Truth, does not mean that he will till the soil endlessly, for a harvest date is set, and then the "awesome day of the LORD" comes (Joel 2:31-32) & (Isaiah 28:23-29). "For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be those who escape" The "day of judgment", she is a coming.


New American Standard Bible (Isaiah 28:24 & 28)
"Does the farmer plow continually to plant seed? Does he continually turn and harrow the ground?"

"For "he does not continue to thresh it forever"

[showme]

[Replying to post 24 by RightReason]

Each of the Church's creeds was written in response to a heresy, to combat it not by force but by truth, as light combats darkness. Creeds are truth in labeling. Those who disbelieve in truth or scorn it, or who disbelieve in our ability to know it, see creeds as power plays.

The Roman churches first Nicene Creed seemed to center around a trinity of gods, based on a pagan example, and that Yeshua arose on the third day, instead after 3 days and 3 nights. Both pronouncements are false, and in order to keep the peons in line, supposed heretics were tortured, and if they survived, were burned alive, if not, burned anyway, and all their property was divided between the state and the church. Writings, such as those of Arian, were burned, or if found in someone's possession, the possessor was liable to be executed. As you to do others, so shall be done to you. My suggestion, would be to step away from the Roman church and her pronouncements.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 21 by RightReason]

Then what do you make of the fact that Jesus never mentions "the blood" in the Lord's prayer, the Beattitudes, and the Parables. I.e. the bulk of his teachings. He mentions forgiveness in all those places, (mercy) but not "the blood". Why is that?

The blood is put by the figure Metonymy for his death which is mentioned in the parables. The servants are slain, and then when the son arrives (a direct reference to himself) he is also slain.

Seems to me that you are picking and choosing as well. Or letting the RCC do that for you. It's a matter of emphasis. The RCC emphasizes "the blood" while pretty much ignoring the bulk of Jesus teachings. At least for the purposes of formulation of doctrine.

Notice the Creed makes no mention at all of Jesus teachings. They could have included a line such as "he taught Love of God and neighbor, which is the Law and the Prophets". But they apparently do not consider Jesus teachings important enough to mention?

The reason being that they are still admitting that they continue to sin which necessitates the sacrifice of Christ to cover their sins.

Far too much emphasis on teachings about Jesus, who he supposedly is, Paul's theological interpretation of his crucifixion, etc, at the expense of the teachings of Jesus himself.[/quote]