GakuseiDon

It depends on what this is patterned on. Goats without blemish were sacrified and the blood carried into the Holy of Holies. No need for another sacrifice there. So Christ could have been something similar: sacrificed on earth and then taken to heaven, along the lines outlined by Hebrews.

The comment in eBarnabas about "the enemies" destroying the Temple, placing it between 70 CE and 130 CE.

maryhelena

GDon this is utter nonsense - there is no comparison between an animal sacrifice and a human sacrifice. I will not hear of it - such a theory is the height of immorality and debases our humanity. And is ascribing something to 'Paul' that is a grave injustice.

I'm happy with that dating - 'Paul' following the gospel time line is storytime....

GakuseiDon

Perhaps this is something you need to take up with Paul. Paul wrote:

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

and

Rom 5.8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

and

Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned... 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many.

It certainly sounds like the death of Christ and the shedding of blood resulted in the remission of sins, which IIRC was the function of the scape-goat.

maryhelena

Perhaps you need a crash course in morality................:banghead:

GDon - if the logical outcome of an argument, or theory, contradicts basic human values - then it's the theory that needs to be ditched - not that the irrational and immoral outcome becomes the highest standard, the highest value of human relationships, the ultimate way to human 'salvation'. That is the bottom line here - upholding a humanitarian core as being essential to the early christian writers.

As far as interpreting the words of 'Paul' - 'Paul' can have his cake and eat it as well. Why? Because he is using two different contexts here. What works in one context, salvation via a spiritual/intellectual 'sacrifice' - does not work in a flesh and blood context.