[christnow]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

I've changed the parts I disagree with, mainly removing the emotive language, as you don't seem to have grasped this point.

"Human blood sacrifices are when the deity (as is believed) cannot
1. forgive or
2. assist or
3. grant power, etc.
unless a human being is killed, i.e. offered to the deity. The sacrifice effectively empowers the deity to act.

The Christian concept of the sacrifice of Jesus is similar except that
only an unblemished person can qualify as a sacrifice. God himself provided Jesus for mankind because no man would ordinarily have qualified, thus leaving the world in a continual state of enmity with God. By providing Jesus, God effectively ended, once and for all, the need for human sacrifice, thus freeing mankind from his obligation to God."

I would add that it was always God's purpose to do this and it was never his purpose that sacrifices should be necessary.

Okay, now I'm not asking you if you agree with the definition. But if human blood sacrifice is defined as this...

"Human blood sacrifices are when an angry god refuses to forgive unless some innocent human dies a horrible bloody death."

According to that definition, is Jesus a human blood sacrifice?

[Desert Reign]

Originally Posted by christnow

Okay, now I'm not asking you if you agree with the definition. But if human blood sacrifice is defined as this...

"Human blood sacrifices are when an angry god refuses to forgive unless some innocent human dies a horrible bloody death."

According to that definition, is Jesus a human blood sacrifice?

I can't really answer that because I don't agree with that definition. What I will say though is that in OT theology, it is not the fall of Adam that is the most significant in establishing the relationship between man and God but the Flood. The point of the flood is that God had had enough of man. (I wouldn't describe this as anger - the text says simply that God regretted that he had made man) but that through the one offering made by Noah, God relented and decided he would never again cause a catastrophic disaster to come upon man.

Jesus is of course a type of Noah but my point would be that God, through Noah, had already accommodated himself to the fact that humankind was a bad egg. It no longer makes sense to say that he was angry. His anger against mankind as a whole was assuaged in Noah. The purpose of Christ was to do a better job than Noah could do by reconciling men to God.

[christnow]

Originally Posted by Desert Reign

I can't really answer that because I don't agree with that definition. What I will say though is that in OT theology, it is not the fall of Adam that is the most significant in establishing the relationship between man and God but the Flood. The point of the flood is that God had had enough of man. (I wouldn't describe this as anger - the text says simply that God regretted that he had made man) but that through the one offering made by Noah, God relented and decided he would never again cause a catastrophic disaster to come upon man.

Jesus is of course a type of Noah but my point would be that God, through Noah, had already accommodated himself to the fact that humankind was a bad egg. It no longer makes sense to say that he was angry. His anger against mankind as a whole was assuaged in Noah. The purpose of Christ was to do a better job than Noah could do by reconciling men to God.

I understand fully that you do not agree with that definition.

I just want to have a good communication between me and you, so answer...

If that is the definition, though you think it is not, was Jesus a human blood sacrifice then?