The Falsehood of Blood Atonement

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matthew1034

Puritan Board Freshman
[video=youtube;ZGEDVTDf2tk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGEDVTDf2tk[/video]
I happened upon a man's video series on YouTube. The series is his defense against the theme of blood atonement in the old and new covenants.

Here is the link to the comments page.

His appeal is that Jesus' message is contradictory to the "blood thirsty" God of the OT prophets and ancient Hebrews, and that Jesus rather taught forgiveness and mercy without blood atonement or payment for sin. His proof text for his belief is Hosea 6:6:

For I desire mercy and not sacrifice,
And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.
Now, I don't doubt there is a sort of new-age influence in his view of Jesus teaching about forgiveness, and it is clear that he rejects NT inspiration and historicity.

I was hoping we could generate some discussion about his points of debate in the above link.

Maybe a good place to start is:
Why does God require blood atonement for sin? Isn't he a God of mercy and love?

Also, any loving critique about the way I approached him will be humbly accepted.
 

Zenas

Snow Miser
Maybe a good place to start is:
Why does God require blood atonement for sin? Isn't he a God of mercy and love?

Also, any loving critique about the way I approached him will be humbly accepted.
Requiring a blood sacrifice for rebellion doesn't mean God isn't a God of mercy and love. Simply stating the assertion doesn't prove it's true and ignores the depravity of man.

The very presence of the availability of a blood atonement for sin is an manifestation of mercy for a people who, by law, deserve to die.

Moreover, the seeming appeal to Jesus being some fuzzy, loving guy flies in the face of the New Testament and the book of Matthew. (I didn't watch the video). Christ specifically condemns people and shows no mercy for the unrepentant. Sorry to bust his "God is fuzzy" parade.

Moreover, His message was a blood sacrifice in itself. God became man and shed His own blood to atone for the sins of his people. The "blood thirst" of the OT was merely a foreshadowing of what was to come: the ultimate atonement once and for all for all of God's people.

The Hosea quote seems reminiscent of what Samuel told Saul when he spared the Amalekite king contra to the mandate from God to devote the entire people to total destruction; that obedience is better than sacrificing.

The Hosea quote is a truism, not a contradiction in God's nature. It is, indeed, better to be great in the knowledge of God rather than offer burnt offerings. The offerings are a result of a lack of knowledge and an abundance of rebellion or presumption: they're what you do when you make a mistake because you have no knowledge. In this way, knowledge is greater.

The same thing is applied in what Samuel told Saul. Saul was going to spare the livestock to offer up in sacrifice to God. Samuel drove home the point that he disobeyed God in order to sacrifice to God and revealed Saul's foolishness. If he had merely obeyed, there would be no need to sacrifice; he would have obeyed God and God would require no sacrifice.

The Hosea quote ultimately drives home a meaning contradictory to what he's saying and simply states the obvious. In context, he sounds awfully childish with his use of Scripture.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top