ewq1938

 

Well I can only go on what you've been saying.

Yet you got stuck on something I never denied or spoke against? The Thread is about a replacement, being better doesn't change that a replacement took place. Do you deny a "better replacement" happened?

No, this is your claim. It is unusual, not supported by consensus commentary (of any theology) and therefore the onus is on you to prove there was a change and when it happened.  Please support your extraordinary claim or stop making it.

I have already posted two verses showing God forgiving sin through animal sacrifice sin atonement. I have also asked you to show repentance was additionally required from the relevant verses which you haven't provided yet. I'm not saying it couldn't have been part of this process, but I haven't read it was required so I would like to see a verse addressing it in the appro. timeframe of the early practicing of this sin atonement ritual.

I can go earlier than Exodus - what about the difference between Cain and Abel's offerings? Was it just that one involved blood and the other didn't? No - consider the NT comment on them both.

This has nothing to do with sin atonement given within the law of Moses which is the subject we are discussing.

 

Yes, it was a BETTER replacement....of course it was but one thing did replace the other.

 

 

But that's not what you've been arguing.

 

 

Yes I have, you just assumed I didn't think it was better, which is a strange assumption to make. Why in the world you continue to deny one thing replace another is beyond me but I tire of going around in circles.

 

 

Could you clarify please?

 

 

So you do think forgiveness only requires the shedding of some blood - extraordinary!

 

 

 

Usually it is, according to scripture:

 

Heb_9:22  And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am not aware of any OT scripture that requires repentance itself along with the sacrifice for sin atonement which is why I asked the question above.

 

 

Seriously!?  

 

Psa 51:16-17 (you seem to have forgotten I mentioned that already)

Hosea 6:6

Isaiah 66:2

Micah 6:8

1 Samuel 15:22

1 Kings 8:33,35,38,47,48

 

 

 

Those are all after the change. I'm asking for earlier scripture that is related to the actual sacrifices and sin atonement obviously. Exodus through Deut. will suffice I think.

 

 

 

 

 

These show that God was not just interested in the blood but also the attitude and heart of the offerer. Then there are the times when God says he does not accept their offering because of their lack of a change of heart.

 

 

Already agree it was like that at the times those were written but we are discussing earlier when God was forgiving sins, showing he was accepting the offerings.

 

No it comes from your imagination.

 

 

Nope. It's in the scriptures. God is Elohim with a plural verb.

 

 And you say 'no angels were there with Jacob', whereas verse 12 says clearly 'and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it'. So you're not even reading the text.

 

 

 

It doesn't say the angels with there with Jacob, they are simply seen going up and down this ladder but scripture states God was there with Jacob. You speak of doctrinal bias but you have it more than I. I am not a part of any official religion or institution as you are. You are taught and the official position of Christdelphian's is that Elohim cannot be plural when it reference to God, but I was not taught the opposite by anyone. My position comes solely on scripture and it is true that Elohim is shown to be plural sometimes in relation to God alone, no angels or anyone other than whoever is God.

 

 

Now, I personally don't mind if someone believes as you do. I have Jehovah witness friends who believe the same on that issue and it is of no concern between us. It is just a disagreement.

2Ch 32:15  Now therefore let not Hezekiah deceive you, nor persuade you on this manner, neither yet believe him: for no god of any nation or kingdom was able to deliver his people out of mine hand, and out of the hand of my fathers: how much less shall your God deliver you out of mine hand?

Here deliver is plural. Before you say it, I know who is speaking here but more importantly is who is writing these Hebrew words. The writer is inspired to use a plural verb here in regard to God making Elohim here plural.

 

No, it was to educate people that the old way of animal sacrifice had been replaced by a sacrifice by Christ for all time.

Just take a look at how many times in Hebrews the word "better" is used about Christ's sacrifice, based on better promises ie before the sacrificial law was introduced by Moses. It is not simply a replacement or a substitute, it is better because it's basis predates the sacrificial law (eg Heb 7).
 

 

Yes, it was a BETTER replacement....of course it was but one thing did replace the other.

 

 

 

 

Animal sacrifice hadn't been acceptable for a long time but that doesn't mean, nor did Paul say, it hadn't at one time been enough. The earlier parts of the OT show this to be true and those verses cannot be ignored or else you will have a partial, incomplete understanding of this issue.

I'm not ignoring the verses you've quoted, but they are not quite the complete picture. I'm simply arguing that true forgiveness has always been conditional upon repentance. Do you really disagree with that?

 

 

Can you supply OT scripture in relation to sin atonement that addresses repentance?

 

 

 

Are you really arguing that at one time forgiveness was not conditional on repentance but was only conditional on the blood of an animal being shed? I don't think you are saying that and I don't want to assume you think that or push you into that position. Could you clarify please?

 

I am not aware of any OT scripture that requires repentance itself along with the sacrifice for sin atonement which is why I asked the question above.