[
Replying to Elijah John]
Creeds also tell us what a Church considers most important. In this case, Jesus Divine nature, and his work on the cross.
Really? Did you miss these parts of the Creed. . .
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen..
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the
Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy
catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one
baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.
Amen.
Seems to be more in the creed than a discussion about Jesus’ divinity, in fact, there is no mention of His divine nature in the Apostle’s creed at all. You sure see what you want to see.
seems to be at odds with what Jesus himself taught, believed, and emphasized:..:
Mark 12.29-31
Quote:
“The most important one,� answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Uuuhh yep – that’s in the Creed. Again, did you miss it?
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
and of all that is, seen and unseen.
So, there is no way you can claim the creeds are at odds with Jesus’ message – what an odd thing to say.
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"?
Gee, would be like anytime I wanted to teach my children about kindness and generosity and forgiveness I would have to follow it up with, “And don’t forget I sacrificed my life for you. Don’t forget your father and I went to great lengths to have you and provide for you. It cost us a great deal – may you never forget blood was involved!�
Why speak of forgiveness so often with no mention of "the blood"?
Well, I guess if you don’t read Scripture as a whole you might be able to miss the blood part, but I know it is in my bible. How do you discern which parts of Scripture are more important than others? There are lots of sincere truth seeking folk out there all emphasizing different parts of Scripture than you. Are you more enlightened then they are? Smarter? Holier? And how can you be so sure your understanding is correct? Aren’t we to learn from all of Scripture? Which parts were you told to pay attention to? These are very important questions and ones I don’t think many Christians take the time to actually think about. Because it matters, right? I mean it matters if we are getting it right, right? I would love to know your process and what you say to some other sincere truth seeking individual who sees it differently than you?
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.
Jesus fulfills this truth in being the ultimate sacrifice – the unblemished lamb. How do you not see that?
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?
They are mentioned in verses preceding and following!! Every time I tell my children I love them, I don’t mention the bloody way they entered this world. I don’t mention the excruciating pain they caused me. They recognize that my love and mercy toward them is in perfect harmony with the unpleasant bloody sacrifice I went thru. One does not contradict the other. Both are necessary – as Scripture continually reminds us! Honestly, it’s difficult for me to wrap my head around someone thinking it has to be either or and not both, with both of course indicating balance and harmony.
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.
Yes, I realize this is your position; however I find it completely unfounded. You are looking for something to complain about as we say or looking for something to rationalize your own theological views. I call it barking up the wrong tree. First, it is a little arrogant of you to assume you know what the early church should have focused on. It is also a little arrogant to assume you know they in fact did not always teach about the Father’s love and mercy. That did not fall to the way side – LOL! Step into a Catholic Church and I can assure you you will hear about the Father’s love and mercy. So, again not sure what your beef is. Again, your comments are odd – almost like trying to pick a fight.
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.)
Oh my. I am afraid you miss the point of it all. It is you who shun the parts of Scripture that you do because it does not fit your theology. Like I said, as Catholics we take it all in.
Here is a great article on Psalm 50 that you site (claiming we ignore) showing just how very off you are in your interpretation. Your conclusion demonstrates you do not read all the psalms and read them in conjunction with the rest of Scripture. The article puts into place those, like you, who eagerly suggest Psalm 50
proves God wants nothing to do with sacrifice when that simply is not the case . . .
*******
At this point the Psalmist has changed from his own voice to speaking in the person of God Himself. One superficial reading of this section of the Psalm would have it that God does not want blood sacrifice, or even, more radically, that He is mocking the entire concept of animal sacrifice. One might imagine an anachronistic Israelite PETA member marshaling the passage forth in his effort to end cruelty to animals in divine worship.
. . . in the last verse of the Psalm, that reading seems to be contradicted entirely, when the Royal Prophet declares, “[21] Then [after Jerusalem is built up] shalt thou accept the sacrifice of justice, oblations and whole burnt offerings: then shall they lay calves upon thy altar.�
Taken together, these seemingly contrary sentiments of “God doesn’t want all these animal sacrifices but inward contrition� on the one hand and “God wants sacrifice of animals� on the other are not contrary, but complementary. God does want sacrifice — indeed, He had mandated it in the Mosaic Law, which was binding in David’s day — but He wants that sacrifice joined to inward virtues of humility and contrition, as well as inward acts of adoration, thanksgiving, reparation, and petition. Moreover, for the faithful of the Old Covenant, the external rite was supposed to signify and elicit those very interior things.
Of course God wants sacrifice. Sacrifice is the highest act of the virtue of religion. Two episodes of Reconquest, “Giving God His Due� and “The Mass in the Old Testament� spell out, in some detail, how the Mass is indeed the Sacrifice of the New Law, as does an earlier Ad Rem, “The Mass in Type and Prophecy.� From the earliest Fathers of the Church, and with a stunning explicitness in Saint Ambrose, we learn that the Christian Church always had the cult of sacrifice continued in the Holy Mass,
Yes, from us, His Church, God still wants sacrifice in the strict sense, for what else did Jesus command at the Last Supper when He said, “Do this for a commemoration of me� (Luke 22:19)?
. . . in the Holy Mass, a sacrifice in the strict and proper sense of the word, the true religion still retains the cult of sacrifice. It is the immolation of the Man-God, whose merits, being divine, are of infinite value. Moreover, the very Manhood itself, that Sacred Humanity of Jesus, is sinless, spotless, and perfect in every way. Christ Our Lord’s action in the Mass is also an example to us. He who is both Priest and Victim offers Himself with a good and perfect Heart. By cultivating those virtues so beautifully expressed in the Psalms — faith, humility, hope, contrition, love of God, loyalty, promptitude in the divine service, etc. — our hearts will begin to resemble the Sacred Heart of Jesus, who, “by the Holy Ghost offered himself unspotted unto God� (Heb. 9:14) the Father for the glory of the Holy Trinity and for the salvation of men.
https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-290.html
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.
Seriously? What an injustice you do to Sacred Scripture. Like I said it is your erroneous understanding of Scripture that is forming your erroneous theological views. You miss the meaning and therefore attribute false projections. Has no one ever properly explained Exodus to you? Ok, look I’m going to try in a few sentences to explain something like slavery in the OT . . .
First Exodus was a story of man’s journey. It is to teach and show us how far we have come. The passage does not indicate that it’s ok to keep and beat slaves. Do you know anything about this time period in history? It was barbaric and cruel. People were tortured, stoned to death, and yes slavery was rampant. So, now you have God’s chosen people who God held to a higher standard. The culture at this time had no rules/laws. It was do whatever works for you. God had to meet these people where they were. To go into that kind of culture and proclaim the evils of slavery would have been something they were not ready for. (kind of like the culture today when they think their right to abortion might be taken away. They can’t imagine this infringement on their right to do what they want to do. So, what does the Church do? She isn’t out to call women who have abortions murders, threaten to lock them up and excommunicate them. No! She is more interested in changing hearts— just like God did with the Israelites and mankind regarding slavery --even if that might take awhile. The Church hopes that someday people will come to realize that abortion is the civil rights slavery issue of our time. How barbaric that we actually live in a culture that thinks it ok for mothers to kill their babies in the womb. You want to talk about ignoring an entire class of people – the unborn! But the Church, in her wisdom, continues to defend life and hopes to eventually help people answer to a higher law, but before that can happen hearts have to be changed).
Baby steps were necessary then, just like they still are today. So, what did God do – he gave Moses a set of laws (Mosaic Law – not exactly God’s law. People can understand human law. It can be a way of forcing certain behaviors. Eventually, we hope to rise above needing human laws to tell us that we can’t own other humans or we can’t kill innocent babies). In the laws given to Moses were the first steps in seeing the dignity of the human person. Prior to God’s command, it was ok to torture and beat slaves and leave them for dead for any reason. But Mosaic Law told God’s followers they couldn’t do that. Now while you think it horrific to suggest God said someone had to have just reason to beat their slave, you fail to realize God knew in forcing this upon them, they would eventually come to see the person behind the slave. Mosaic Law had laws about treating aliens better, about taking care of widows, about protecting women, about treating slaves with more compassion. At that time – that was revolutionary! Good Grief! This complaint that God was cool with slavery is an ignorant understanding of the situation.
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".
Yes, I believe it came from God, as God says, due to the hardness of your hearts (not unlike He did with regarding divorce. It was God’s law that divorce is wrong, BUT due to the hardness of our hearts, God told Moses he could grant a person a divorce. Saying then that God is just fine with divorce is a huge misinterpretation of truth). The Israelites demanded a set of rules that they could adhere to. God gave them what they wanted. Again, baby steps . . . the Old Testament is about our journey and how as we grow closer to God, hearts begin to change. Think about it. Please.
