we went over this before in another thread. jesus had to shed blood for the sins of man because blood is required for the forgiveness of sins. this is what the old covenant required. without christ's sacrifice there is no atonement for sin other than the old way of dealing with the priests in sacrificing animals and pouring their blood on the alter in the temples.
thats what the sacrifice, the new covenant in christ's blood, is. the final atonement for sin. your view of who jesus is, is based on your personal world view and totally contradictory to the testimony of scripture and as i said, you can reject the testimony but you cant change it.
jesus barely followed tradition or rituals. why would he care about this ritual. how is an omnipotent god confined by a law to create a perverse law in which the innocent are punished. was jesus not already disobeying the original law before his sacrifice commenced? how was he able to do this and not sin? is forgiveness of sins not enough.
so you believe the events chronicled in the gospels are incorrect? do you have any historical or journalistic evidence showing the testimony of these documents to be in error? your objection to what's wirtten in the gospels seems to be more about them not agreeing with your personal world view rather than lack of historical or journalistic accuracy.
i believe the gospels were biased and from what ive seen of jesus in the books it seemed to me as if his disciples tried to give to many old testament qualities to jesus. also theres very suspicious moments such as the disciples not recoginising the new "jesus" after he died. also science seems to suggest the miracles are erroneous
paul's writings dont contradict what jesus did so there's nothing wrong with what paul wrote.
christians often have a way of seeing two completely different ways of life and thinking theyre the same. its astonished me how they think the same god who gave jesus to the world is the same one who turned lot's wife to a pillar of salt because she looked back or tells people to stone homosexuals. paul is a very different man. when i read his letters most of the time it made me a more depressed and angry person. it was bad for my health. maybe he doesnt directly contradict jesuss messages but they sound very different. i could show plenty of petty differences such as in Rom 14 paul says jesus is god of the dead but in luke 20:38 luke says that jesus is not god of the dead. in Rom3:24 and Rom 3:28 paul says were justified by jesus' faith and grace and in Matt 12:37 matthew says were justified by our words. (interesting that u can see the transformation from our words justifying us to jesus' sacrifice justifying us).
but what would be the point of showing lots of petty differences. the point is if looked objectively they sound very different.
a mixture of malicious and cold things jesus has said that also show that he absolutely judges people and differentiates.
you ask why he has to do it this way? because thats his decree. if you dont like that, well...thats your problem. whether or not it jives with your world veiw is not relevant. the point is what the scriptures say.
jesus is obviously getting hugely upset. it pains him so much that these priests stop others from loving. if jesus had one form of moral code or judgement it would be "whatever makes a being love is good and whoever loves is good, whatever makes a being not love and whoever doesnt love is bad". but when he loves to his fullest its different because pure love is unconditional. it goes beyond good and evil. it obscures vision so that a person can no longer judge or differentiate. he loves them no matter what. have u ever seen how a mother loves her child no matter what he does even if hes pure evil. that was jesus majority of the time. its why jesus was able to dine with very bad people. jesus got frustrated at the priests. they were his demons of gravity which held people from entering the kingdom of god which is the realm of pure love.
paul doesnt actlike this nor could he understand it
also you did exactly what i pointed out my last post. you look for literla words and phrases and completely ignore contextual reference. clearly you understand what the old and new covenants were and i dont think you as this isnt about peoper exegesis of scripture for you, this is about what jives with your personal world view.