Right?
2007-06-15 06:11:07 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
"God" did not demand the blood of Jesus. Jesus offered it in expiation of sins. It still doesn't make much sense, but that is what was written by Paul in aramaic in his original text.
2007-06-15 06:23:02 · answer #1 · answered by essentiallysolo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, the wrath was God's wrath. The punishment for the sin was death, so it needs to be taken seriously. Animal sacrifices are not needed anymore because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice.
Jesus is God. He is basically taking His own wrath for us, how much more mercy you want. He did what needed to be done for the forgiveness of our sins.
I can see that it would be more inviting if we did not have to do anything and we still would get saved. This God's plan actually asks us to make a choice. I think it is arrogance to spit on the cross, when I know that the wages of the sin was death. The salvation is free, but you still need to accept it. And part of the accepting is to follow His way.
2007-06-15 13:51:34 · answer #2 · answered by SeeTheLight 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wrong. To merely say, "Don't worry...it's OK," is to condone sin, and it is precisely this position that many Christians unwittingly take when they ask someone for forgiveness. According to the Old Testament, restitution for wrongdoing was REQUIRED. In other words, if stole something, I had to pay it back (fourfold!) in addition to asking for forgiveness of the person I stole from, as well as asking God to forgive me, which included a sacrifice.
Payment for sin is required because God is just, and the relationship is restored by the sacrifice:
"God was IN Christ, reconciling the world to Himself." 2 cor 5:19
Lastly, JUST = demanding payment. Merciful = accepting payment.
2007-06-15 13:20:39 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hello, Bettie! In the context of Christianity, I would express it like this:
Merciful = God freely giving His own blood to pay for something that isn't His fault.
2007-06-15 14:49:44 · answer #4 · answered by Suzanne: YPA 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That is the dilemma. God cannot change His laws or the results of breaking them. He would not have sent His son to pay the price for mankind if He could. Without the shedding of blood, there can be no remission of sin, thus no salvation for fallen man.
2007-06-15 13:24:46 · answer #5 · answered by Mr. E 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
this is the biggest misunderstanding, there is only One God
it was not his son as another being but God became the son in redemption
God was manifest in the flesh it was not another who came, that would be cruel to send someone else, I am glad that is not what happened even is most seem to forget God is a spirit and the only body He has is Christ. and that titles are not names
it dose not take 3 gods to beat up 1 devil
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
2007-06-15 13:27:01 · answer #6 · answered by Noble Angel 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nice try, but it wasn't something He could have given freely. Jesus was sent to save us. We don't have to understand God's plans; we just have to trust them.
2007-06-15 13:19:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Greetings,
Nice try but no cigar. There was more to it than that. Of course if you were to read your bible and understand what it was that you were reading then you wouldn't have had to come and look for an answer that is contained in the bible.
2007-06-15 13:24:16 · answer #8 · answered by cobravetor 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋