Under The Law, God required animal sacrifice ... a work: https://www.gotquestions.org/animal-sacrifices.html BEGIN QUOTE--------------------- Why did God require animal sacrifices in the Old Testament? God required animal sacrifices to provide a temporary covering of sins and to foreshadow the perfect and complete sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Leviticus 4:35, 5:10). Animal sacrifice is an important theme found throughout Scripture because “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22). When Adam and Eve sinned, animals were killed by God to provide clothing for them (Genesis 3:21). After the flood receded, Noah sacrificed animals to God (Genesis 8:20-21). God commanded the nation of Israel to perform numerous sacrifices according to certain procedures prescribed by God. First, the animal had to be spotless. Second, the person offering the sacrifice had to identify with the animal. Third, the person offering the animal had to inflict death upon it. When done in faith, this sacrifice provided a temporary covering of sins. Another sacrifice called for on the Day of Atonement, described in Leviticus 16, demonstrates forgiveness and the removal of sin. The high priest was to take two male goats for a sin offering. One of the goats was sacrificed as a sin offering for the people of Israel (Leviticus 16:15), while the other goat was released into the wilderness (Leviticus 16:20-22). The sin offering provided forgiveness, while the other goat provided the removal of sin. Why, then, do we no longer offer animal sacrifices today? Animal sacrifices have ended because Jesus Christ was the ultimate and perfect sacrifice. John the Baptist recognized this when he saw Jesus coming to be baptized and said, “Look, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29). You may be asking yourself, why animals? What did they do wrong? That is the point—since the animals did no wrong, they died in place of the one performing the sacrifice. Jesus Christ also did no wrong but willingly gave Himself to die for the sins of mankind (1 Timothy 2:6). Jesus Christ took our sin upon Himself and died in our place. As 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “God made him [Jesus] who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” Through faith in what Jesus Christ accomplished on the cross, we can receive forgiveness. In summation, animal sacrifices were commanded by God so that the individual could experience forgiveness of sin. The animal served as a substitute—that is, the animal died in place of the sinner, but only temporarily, which is why the sacrifices needed to be offered over and over. Animal sacrifices have stopped with Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was the ultimate sacrificial substitute once for all time (Hebrews 7:27) and is now the only mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5). Animal sacrifices foreshadowed Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. The only basis on which an animal sacrifice could provide forgiveness of sins is Christ who would sacrifice Himself for our sins, providing the forgiveness that animal sacrifices could only illustrate and foreshadow. END QUOTE----------------------- In the Age of Grace, God requires belief, a work, imo--something you have to do: The Philippian jailer asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” (Acts 16:30). Paul and Silas responded, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).
When I get into heaven someone is sure to ask how I got here, and I'll say the fear of God and Beelzebub motivated me. I can't say love as I have none of that.
Maybe they will have to wait until afterward (if they can make it that long). Then God may choose to reveal Himself in dreams and visions to them. And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Joel 2:28
@studentofthemarkets @themickey Here's another example of Atheist's wanting to hold Christians to a higher standard. They themselves are clueless, or pretend to be clueless, as to how the deaf and dumb learn, yet, they expect Christians to have all the answers. Why do Atheist hate Christians. Why do Atheist hate Jews. It's one thing not to agree with ... it's a whole other thing to hate.
Ya got to give it to those ol' time smooth snakeoil salesmen, they had all bases covered and why wouldn't they, after gawd knows how many years to have every excuse, every out, nicely stitched up story lines to catch sheep and fleece them efficiently, all done with bs talk. Kind of reminds me of realestate salesmen, smooth bs artsts. Does he remind you of Jesus?
This might take a while to work through because there are a lot of red flags popping up for me, and I think it's best to go through each one, one at a time. For starters, if you are in agreement with the article when it says (boldness added) the following: But you have to know which Gospel. Paul tells us in Galatians 2:7-9 that there were two Gospels, one that he (Paul) preached to the Gentiles (uncircumcision) by revelation from Jesus Christ. And the other that John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter and the 12 preached to the Jews or Nation of Israel (circumcision). So as you study, notice who is speaking and who is being spoken to. Then, would you please show me how anywhere in Galatians chapter 2:7-9 there are two gospels? I can only find one. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised.8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles.9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. I see that God directed Paul to the gentiles and God directed Peter to work with Jews, but I do not see anything at all that their Gospel message was different depending on the audience, especially when considering how often Paul refers to other church leaders or having the church imitate the churches in Judea. Also, do you see this sentence in the passage? "And the other that John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter and the 12 preached to the Jews or Nation of Israel (circumcision)" I don't see anything about that in this Galatians passage. The way the author words it it sounds like he's got 3 gospels just in the disciples lifetime. Also, don't you agree that gospel simply means good news? Would using the word gospel, if exchanged with the words, "good news" mean that this was the message that contained all the criteria needed to be saved every time it is used, or could it mean, sometimes, just the simple meaning of "good news" ? And thanks for answering the questions, if you want to debate this thing.