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.
uck of the draw.
ersecution of the saints.
Time is an illusion; lunchtime doubly so.
(The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy)
"It makes no difference what is said."
"It amazes me how one who can't even put an English sentence together, presumes to be able to critique a writer of my level
: "I haven't twisted all that much."