jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (13 posts)

Jesus Dying For Your Sins And Being Washed In His Blood

  1. vveasey profile image85
    vveaseyposted 3 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/8489148_f520.jpg
    Why do so many Christians seem to be happy that Jesus died for their sins and that being washed in his blood (washed in the blood of Jesus) is a good thing?

    Isn't that kind of barbaric to be washed in someones blood who died for your sins?

    Aren't they happy that an innocent person died in their place?

    Is that an admirable, morally acceptable way to be?

    Do they think its acceptable if they were innocent of a crime but were executed instead of those who were guilty?
    replymore →

  2. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 3 years ago

    You've missed the point because you, luckily, live in a time where this seems barbaric. Study history. Understand the mindset of the civilization these events are purported to have happened in. You might have a better ability to comprehend the symbolism.

    1. vveasey profile image85
      vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You seem to think that because i asked this question that I don't understand the symbolism.
      The symbolism is easy to understand
      But people take this symbolism literally
      explain how you view the symbolism

      1. profile image0
        Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        You first.

        1. vveasey profile image85
          vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Emile R
          If I has asserted that "Understand the mindset of the civilization these events are purported to have happened in. You might have a better ability to comprehend the symbolism." I would go first. But I didn't assert that about you. But you did about me.

          So you need to go first and explain what you mean by that assertion.

          1. profile image0
            Emile Rposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It was Jewish custom to slaughter animals for sacrifice, as it was most of the ancient world. Once a year (I believe) they would gather, the priests would slaughter a cow and splatter the blood of the sacrifice over the crowd to atone for their sins. My understanding of the crucifixion was it marked the end of the barbaric ritual. The ultimate sacrifice was offered and there would be no more.

            Yes, barbaric. Yes, foolish. But, I was never an ancient so I suppose they saw it as a great relief.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Wise words Emile, barbaric and foolish. Why do we still have people thinking it was a legitimate and needed sacrifice? I keep asking people to explain it because I find it confusing, barbaric and foolish as well.

            2. A Troubled Man profile image61
              A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Odd, I thought they still eat wafers and drink wine to symbolize the eating of flesh and drinking of blood of Christ.

              1. vveasey profile image85
                vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                A Troubled Man
                but at the time they do that they actually believe that the wine and wafers are actually transmuted into the actual blood and body of Jesus

                1. A Troubled Man profile image61
                  A Troubled Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Seems like barbaric cannibalism.

                  1. vveasey profile image85
                    vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Yep I agree but don't Christians love the idea that they're eating Jesus' body and drinking his blood? And that he died as a scapegoat for their sins?

            3. vveasey profile image85
              vveaseyposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Thanks Emile
              it's  the old idea of the scape goat.
              ( Animal that carried away the sins of the people into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:8 ,Leviticus 16:8,16:10 ,Leviticus 16:10,16:26 ). On the Day of Atonement, when the high priest went once a year into the holy of holies to offer sacrifices for the sins of his family and for all the people, two goats were brought before him. By lot, one was chosen to be “for the Lord.” This goat was slain as a sin offering, and its blood was sprinkled on the cultic objects to help cleanse the altar, the sanctuary, and the tent of meeting from defilements of the past year.

              The second goat was said to be “for Azazel.” The word Azazel is usually interpreted to mean “the goat of removal,” or scapegoat. However, the term may also refer to a rocky place in the desert or to a demon of the desert. By laying his hands on the goat's head, the priest transferred the sins of the people to it and then had the goat led away into the desert, picturing the removal of the sins.) Homan's Bible Dictionary

              This was way before Jesus' time. Those who wrote the Christians documents transferred this idea of the scapegoat to Jesus. That's why I ask why so many people seem to be happy that a innocent human scapegoat died for their sins before they were born or before they commit sins.

    2. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No need for symbolism, and guess what, we don't have to back that far in history to see atrocities.
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/new-trial- … -1.2421649

 
working