The trinity

[blp]

Why did God wait thousands of years before sending a messiah, who was himself, to act as a sacrifice that would render all others irrelevant?

Why did God require the sacrifice of animals before Christ, then provide Christ, who was, in fact, himself, as a replacement sacrifice to himself? In what way is it a demonstration of his love for us that he required us to sacrifice animals to him for thousands of years, then abruptly put a stop to the practice and required only that we accept his sacrifice of himself to himself?

Was Christ a sacrifice to God the Father or to God the Holy Ghost? Did God the Father have to provide God the Son as a sacrifice to God the Holy Ghost? If not, what is the Holy Ghost's role in all this? He's not the ghost of Christ is he?

[billyjack]

its all metaphor. here's a take on christ's death and resurrection that seems to make sense:

reality is god. son of god is thought. son of god must die if we are to see father, just as we must look at reality without words to see it as it is. jesus then returning to heaven symbolic of our recognizing thought as part of reality, not as something objectively outside of it, we recognize this because our spellbind was lifted with his death. (allan watts)

[Rozzy]

I can give you my thoughts on your question, they will likely not be of a peticular doctine or stance taken by any formal religion.

Why did God wait thousands of years before sending a messiah, who was himself, to act as a sacrifice that would render all others irrelevant

The same Lord that died on the cross is the same Lord that created the earth and everything in it, The Lord has never left man on his own as we suppose. Mankind seperated himself from Elohim when he started making up the rules for himself. What seems like a long time to us is but a moment for El Shadai, we have to remember that our lives here are finite and God is infinite which means time does not exist with God but does exist here on earth.


Why did God require the sacrifice of animals before Christ, then provide Christ, who was, in fact, himself, as a replacement sacrifice to himself? In what way is it a demonstration of his love for us that he required us to sacrifice animals to him for thousands of years, then abruptly put a stop to the practice and required only that we accept his sacrifice of himself to himself?


Once there is a division between us and Adonai (Lord or father) there has to be a way to reconcile man back to Adonai otherwise we would all perish because in God there is no darkness and we can not come back to him with part or all of us having darkness within. it is like a man coming to the dinner table of a king, we must be clean, dressed appropriatly and know how to act, this is the respect due. Without shedding of blood there is no forgivness because the wages of sin is death, animal sacrifice was the symbol of what was to come. All the prophets and the people they served were indeed waiting for HaMashiach. When Yahushuah (Jesus) was crucified on the cross He paid the price in full and took the keys to hell and death and by his actions He is our advocate or lawyer so to speak so that though we fail he intercedes for us and to this day He has not lost a case! The ball is really in our court and we decide whether we want The Lord for our councilor or not?

Was Christ a sacrifice to God the Father or to God the Holy Ghost? Did God the Father have to provide God the Son as a sacrifice to God the Holy Ghost? If not, what is the Holy Ghost's role in all this? He's not the ghost of Christ is he?

There are three ways God can come to you, in the fullness of God, which you would die because no man can withstand his infinite presence. The Holy Spirit which you can barely withstand and not perish but can not see with carnal eyes. The Lord Jesus in the flesh which you can both see and touch.

That is as simple as I can put it as a layman myself. For a complete and bonafied answer your clergy of whatever your faith is would be the one to expound further.

Rozzy

[Pendragon]

Why did God wait thousands of years before sending a messiah, who was himself, to act as a sacrifice that would render all others irrelevant?

The time was fortold all through the Old Testament, time, place, and actually the persona God would use, a Son, Christ Jesus.




Why did God require the sacrifice of animals before Christ, then provide Christ, who was, in fact, himself, as a replacement sacrifice to himself? In what way is it a demonstration of his love for us that he required us to sacrifice animals to him for thousands of years, then abruptly put a stop to the practice and required only that we accept his sacrifice of himself to himself? Was Christ a sacrifice to God the Father or to God the Holy Ghost? Did God the Father have to provide God the Son as a sacrifice to God the Holy Ghost?

Blood was the sacrifice, or rather, life, because of Adam's sin. The animals died in place of a human for covering for sin, as Paul says, for a season. But you did well in recognizing that Jesus was simply God Made Flesh. He prepared a special body to indwell. The new sacrifice was Himself for us, not really to anyone. He died because of the sins, and because animals blood couldn't cover once and for all. The Blood of Christ does.



If not, what is the Holy Ghost's role in all this? He's not the ghost of Christ is he?
The Holy Ghost is God Among Us, the outpouring of the Spirit of Christ into all that will believe and accept the sacrifice.

There is God in three roles, three that are actually one.

God Bless

Pen

[blp]

its all metaphor. here's a take on christ's death and resurrection that seems to make sense:

reality is god. son of god is thought. son of god must die if we are to see father, just as we must look at reality without words to see it as it is. jesus then returning to heaven symbolic of our recognizing thought as part of reality, not as something objectively outside of it, we recognize this because our spellbind was lifted with his death. (allan watts)

Not bad, but I'm not convinced. It's just too roundabout - so much so, that virtually no one takes this message from it.


I can give you my thoughts on your question, they will likely not be of a peticular doctine or stance taken by any formal religion.

Why did God wait thousands of years before sending a messiah, who was himself, to act as a sacrifice that would render all others irrelevant

The same Lord that died on the cross is the same Lord that created the earth and everything in it, The Lord has never left man on his own as we suppose. Mankind seperated himself from Elohim when he started making up the rules for himself. What seems like a long time to us is but a moment for El Shadai, we have to remember that our lives here are finite and God is infinite which means time does not exist with God but does exist here on earth.

Yeah, but even so, humanity experienced it as a wait of thousands of years and loads of people lived and died without the opportunity to 'accept Christ as their savior'.



Why did God require the sacrifice of animals before Christ, then provide Christ, who was, in fact, himself, as a replacement sacrifice to himself? In what way is it a demonstration of his love for us that he required us to sacrifice animals to him for thousands of years, then abruptly put a stop to the practice and required only that we accept his sacrifice of himself to himself?


Once there is a division between us and Adonai (Lord or father) there has to be a way to reconcile man back to Adonai otherwise we would all perish because in God there is no darkness and we can not come back to him with part or all of us having darkness within. it is like a man coming to the dinner table of a king, we must be clean, dressed appropriatly and know how to act, this is the respect due.

This idea that we need a way of purging the darkness (of original sin) in order to become one with the pure light of God sort of seems to work, on its own terms at least.



Without shedding of blood there is no forgivness because the wages of sin is death, animal sacrifice was the symbol of what was to come.

Uh oh. Yes, but who says? Who made this rule? God? This would mean, God made a rule (no sinning or somebody or something's got to die), which we all broke without having any choice in the matter (original sin). In fact, to be strictly scriptural about it, the rule was broken for us by proxy - i.e. we didn't really break it, Adam and Eve did. So there's a sort of fairness and balance about the fact that God also provides us with a proxy to take the punishment - Jesus, who, since he actually is God, who made the rule, almost seems a reasonable choice. The only entities getting a really bum deal would seem to be the pre-Christian sheep.

The whole thing works a bit better for me if you take out the idea of original sin, at least in its literal scriptural sense, and put the whole thing down to free-will, to whit, God could have created us pure and free of sin, but then we'd never have made an active choice and effort to know and be good, so our goodness wouldn't mean anything, wouldn't even really be good, you could argue, since goodness would seem to contain an intrinsic, defining quality of being something chosen.

Nevertheless, it's a bit of a leap from that to the Christian idea that we are all inherently sinful and in need of salvation. Isn't it?



When Yahushuah (Jesus) was crucified on the cross He paid the price in full and took the keys to hell and death and by his actions He is our advocate or lawyer so to speak so that though we fail he intercedes for us and to this day He has not lost a case! The ball is really in our court and we decide whether we want The Lord for our councilor or not?

Yes, but again, this is my point. With whom does he intercede for us? With himself apparently, given that God is supposed to be the final arbiter of everything, the ultimate Judge.

Pen, not ignoring your post, but I think my questions above also serve to answer your points.

[Rozzy]

Yeah, but even so, humanity experienced it as a wait of thousands of years and loads of people lived and died without the opportunity to 'accept Christ as their savior'.

The prechristian era people had the same choice as we do today to believe in and trust that the God of the Bible is who he says or not to.



Uh oh. Yes, but who says? Who made this rule? God? This would mean, God made a rule (no sinning or somebody or something's got to die), which we all broke without having any choice in the matter (original sin). In fact, to be strictly scriptural about it, the rule was broken for us by proxy - i.e. we didn't really break it, Adam and Eve did. So there's a sort of fairness and balance about the fact that God also provides us with a proxy to take the punishment - Jesus, who, since he actually is God, who made the rule, almost seems a reasonable choice. The only entities getting a really bum deal would seem to be the pre-Christian sheep.

The whole thing works a bit better for me if you take out the idea of original sin, at least in its literal scriptural sense, and put the whole thing down to free-will, to whit, God could have created us pure and free of sin, but then we'd never have made an active choice and effort to know and be good, so our goodness wouldn't mean anything, wouldn't even really be good, you could argue, since goodness would seem to contain an intrinsic, defining quality of being something chosen.

Nevertheless, it's a bit of a leap from that to the Christian idea that we are all inherently sinful and in need of salvation. Isn't it?

If God is the God of all and there is no greater, He does get to set the rules.
Kind of like jumping off the roof of a four story building, you will not like the consequences whether you agree with the rule of gravity or not.

In the spirit realm there is nothing hidden and there are two opposites, one is light, one is darkness, there is no mix and nor can there be. A simple illustration is to walk into a room that is completely dark, black as can be, then turn a light on. What happened to the darkness? it fled and was gone because they can not mix and the light will always overtake the dark.

Yes, but again, this is my point. With whom does he intercede for us? With himself apparently, given that God is supposed to be the final arbiter of everything, the ultimate Judge.

Remember not to try and compare our finite single person being to an infinite being that can be anything he desires to be. God can be present in any form He wishes so that if He operates in a second and third person why would that astonish us?

Rozzy

[blp]

The prechristian era people had the same choice as we do today to believe in and trust that the God of the Bible is who he says or not to.

No. In the post-Christian era, we are said have the choice of allowing Jesus to absolve us of all our sins. If the situation was still the same then the coming of Christ would have meant nothing and there would be no distinction between Christianity and Judaism.




Uh oh. Yes, but who says? Who made this rule? God? This would mean, God made a rule (no sinning or somebody or something's got to die), which we all broke without having any choice in the matter (original sin). In fact, to be strictly scriptural about it, the rule was broken for us by proxy - i.e. we didn't really break it, Adam and Eve did. So there's a sort of fairness and balance about the fact that God also provides us with a proxy to take the punishment - Jesus, who, since he actually is God, who made the rule, almost seems a reasonable choice. The only entities getting a really bum deal would seem to be the pre-Christian sheep.

The whole thing works a bit better for me if you take out the idea of original sin, at least in its literal scriptural sense, and put the whole thing down to free-will, to whit, God could have created us pure and free of sin, but then we'd never have made an active choice and effort to know and be good, so our goodness wouldn't mean anything, wouldn't even really be good, you could argue, since goodness would seem to contain an intrinsic, defining quality of being something chosen.

Nevertheless, it's a bit of a leap from that to the Christian idea that we are all inherently sinful and in need of salvation. Isn't it?

If God is the God of all and there is no greater, He does get to set the rules.
Kind of like jumping off the roof of a four story building, you will not like the consequences whether you agree with the rule of gravity or not.

I'm not disputing that God, if he exists, gets to make the rules. My point is that he seems to have gone to the trouble of making a rule only to absolve us from having to suffer its consequences.



In the spirit realm there is nothing hidden and there are two opposites, one is light, one is darkness, there is no mix and nor can there be. A simple illustration is to walk into a room that is completely dark, black as can be, then turn a light on. What happened to the darkness? it fled and was gone because they can not mix and the light will always overtake the dark.

That is not right. Haven't you ever heard of degrees of light and shade? Dimmer switches? The transition from night to day?



Remember not to try and compare our finite single person being to an infinite being that can be anything he desires to be. God can be present in any form He wishes so that if He operates in a second and third person why would that astonish us?

Now you sound a bit Hindu. I don't know. I'm astonished by all of it. I'm an atheist. But what I'm really astonished by is not the multiple identity aspect of all this, but the appearance of multiple personality disorder, where one God apparently demands a blood sacrifice and another, the same one, offers the sacrifice of his own son so the rest of us don't have to pay the blood tithe and the son is also the same God - and is distressed enough by having to be the sacrifice that he calls out that God (who is himself) has forsaken him.

And still, the closest I can come to discerning a purpose in it all is if there's a moral argument at work in the process: we are all sinners, not because of something Adam and Eve or Cane did, but because we're fallible and needy. We have to be like this in order to be able to come to know good, or God, which must be a choice we make for it to be meaningful. This almost looks like the beginning of moral philosophy. Instead of just ritually killing an animal, we are being asked to recognise our potential for evil and make a choice. But it still only looks like a beginning, a little tentative - because the ritualistic element isn't fully shrugged off. We can still make a fairly symbolic choice, rather than having to do any hard work to become good.

[dzebra]

This idea that we need a way of purging the darkness (of original sin) in order to become one with the pure light of God sort of seems to work, on its own terms at least.

Uh oh. Yes, but who says? Who made this rule? God? This would mean, God made a rule (no sinning or somebody or something's got to die), which we all broke without having any choice in the matter (original sin). In fact, to be strictly scriptural about it, the rule was broken for us by proxy - i.e. we didn't really break it, Adam and Eve did. So there's a sort of fairness and balance about the fact that God also provides us with a proxy to take the punishment - Jesus, who, since he actually is God, who made the rule, almost seems a reasonable choice. The only entities getting a really bum deal would seem to be the pre-Christian sheep.

The whole thing works a bit better for me if you take out the idea of original sin, at least in its literal scriptural sense, and put the whole thing down to free-will, to whit, God could have created us pure and free of sin, but then we'd never have made an active choice and effort to know and be good, so our goodness wouldn't mean anything, wouldn't even really be good, you could argue, since goodness would seem to contain an intrinsic, defining quality of being something chosen.

Nevertheless, it's a bit of a leap from that to the Christian idea that we are all inherently sinful and in need of salvation. Isn't it?



The Bible says that sin is not inherited, and that we condemn ourselves when we sin, not that we are condemned automatically by existing. This thing you are calling "original sin" (which I gather means that we inherit the sins of Adam and Eve) is not something that I've found in the Bible.

[blp]

The Bible says that sin is not inherited, and that we condemn ourselves when we sin, not that we are condemned automatically by existing. This thing you are calling "original sin" (which I gather means that we inherit the sins of Adam and Eve) is not something that I've found in the Bible.

What then do you understand by the term 'original sin', which certainly is a key Christian concept?

And how do you explain the idea that we are all in need of Christ's salvation if sin is simply a matter of action?

[dzebra]

What then do you understand by the term 'original sin', which certainly is a key Christian concept?

And how do you explain the idea that we are all in need of Christ's salvation if sin is simply a matter of action?

I understand what the term means, it's just not a concept taught in the Bible. We are all in need of Christ's salvation because we all sin. We have natural desires to sin, and no one abstains from sinning. Because of this, we are guilty because of what we do, not what someone else has done.

[blp]

Thanks, dzebra. I actually was under the impression that original sin was something taught in the bible.

Even so, I don't think your idea that everybody sins in action is generally agreed in Christian teaching or seen as the reason for Christ's sacrifice. I guess it partly depends on your definition of sin, but a monk who lives a life of fasting and prayer, committing no misdeeds, doesn't seem to me to be committing any sins. However, as I understand it, he'd still say he was fallen and in need of salvation.

Admittedly, I'm generalising wildly. Still, it does seem that some basis for the doctrine is found in the New Testament and, more to the point, the idea is accepted by all major branches of the Christian Church.

[Rozzy]

blp

You say you are an athiest and you look at things from that point of veiw, that is ok, your responsability is to yourself and that which you either hang your hope on or do not. As for me and my house we will believe The Lord and trust The Lord. If I am wrong I got nothing to loose, but if I am right I have a lot to gain.
My last note on this thread is that I have lived a long time and the trust that now indwells me is based in faith and from experience that can never be denied or changed because it is in the past tense. Just like in the Acts of the Apostles that we read, it changed those men so that they would never be the same, they would go forward, never looking back, never wanting to return because they knew what they knew and no amount of persecution or prosecution could change what they knew. What is it that was so important that they would litterally die for? Eternal life with Christ because that is the best that is saved for last.

Oh, by the way I belong to no official church or religion, I am just saying it as I see it, I am a mere student of life for as long as it lasts.

Rozzy

[blp]

Hi Rozzy, that's all fine, but, if you don't mind my saying so, a little off topic. I was interested, specifically, in winkling some sense out of the idea of the holy trinity and the idea of Christ's 'sacrifice'.

Actually, though, since you've brought it up, what is the experience that can never be denied upon which your trust is based? Don't worry, I won't try to deny it. I'm just interested. It suddenly occurred to me that believers often say their faith is based on actual experience, but, one way or another, the conversation rarely comes around to what that experience actually is.

[Rozzy]

It is a bit of a sidetrack but does fall into the overall subject of God being one, yet there being a trinity.
The trinity is just a concept used to explain a subject that people have a hard time putting into words.
Take for instance I have a spirit, I can be a father and I can be a son all at once, all the same person but in three different capacities.

My experiences are varied and many, some in the spirit realm, some in the carnal realm, I have been healed and seen others healed, some days are common just like any other day of the year. I have seen the daemon posessed set free and the sick healed. The Bible is not some history book of wonderful things that happened long ago, it is for today to teach us today that God is the same yesturday, today and forever.
I am not extraordinary in my experience, there are many who have much more to their account than me, they are not on T.V. and generally speaking not in most churches, synagogues or Mosques. Religion is a tool that is used against people to condemn them and control them. Christ set me free and if I am free then let no man put me in the bonds of religion that has bound so many for so long.
Example:
What church, Mosque or synagogue will not put forth a specific rule on some sort of tithe? I say read Hebrews chapter seven and see what it says, I guarantee you will not here that from any clergy of any kind. If you donate part of your income then you do it freely and not because you will go to hell and burn, there is no requirement whatsoever to give up ten percent or any other amount.
(If the choice is pay the rent or give a tithe, pay the rent.):)