Tell you what. You find me one father of the church who will support your premise that the Father slays the Son and I'll examine it. Until then, I'll continue to reject it outright as nuts.
I noticed you edited it out earlier. Why? Lean into it man, embrace it! This is the core of your soteriology!
////
One other thing I was thinking about. You seem to be viewing the sacrifice on the cross in light of the OT sacrifices. In reality, we should understand the OT sacrifices in light of the cross. The death of Christ Jesus was not a super effective version of the death of animals. The sacrifices of the animals were a shadow of the reality of the cross. The entire temple structure and the Law were there to point to the cross. People were prepared to understand that sin caused death and that death was the means to correct the sin. They were prepared to understand the sacrificial nature of atonement because of their experience of the foretype. This does not make the foretype real or correct.
God told them I desire mercy not sacrifice. He meant it. He didn't want sacrifice, He doesn't need it. That the death of Christ was the means to reconcile humanity doesn't mean God wants to punish. Looking back, we can see the hilasterion covering the Law, and the blood is poured on it to atone us from our failures. Not to prevent God from punishing us, but as the true means of our reconciliation. We have to look from the cross backwards.
I was interested to see that this is exactly how St John instructs us to view Hebrews 9:20-22.
I noticed you edited it out earlier. Why? Lean into it man, embrace it! This is the core of your soteriology!
////
One other thing I was thinking about. You seem to be viewing the sacrifice on the cross in light of the OT sacrifices. In reality, we should understand the OT sacrifices in light of the cross. The death of Christ Jesus was not a super effective version of the death of animals. The sacrifices of the animals were a shadow of the reality of the cross. The entire temple structure and the Law were there to point to the cross. People were prepared to understand that sin caused death and that death was the means to correct the sin. They were prepared to understand the sacrificial nature of atonement because of their experience of the foretype. This does not make the foretype real or correct.
God told them I desire mercy not sacrifice. He meant it. He didn't want sacrifice, He doesn't need it. That the death of Christ was the means to reconcile humanity doesn't mean God wants to punish. Looking back, we can see the hilasterion covering the Law, and the blood is poured on it to atone us from our failures. Not to prevent God from punishing us, but as the true means of our reconciliation. We have to look from the cross backwards.
I was interested to see that this is exactly how St John instructs us to view Hebrews 9:20-22.
Quote:
Moreover he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Why the almost? Why did he qualify it? Because those [ordinances] were not a perfect purification, nor a perfect remission, but half-complete and in a very small degree. But in this case He says, This is the blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you, for the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28
Where then is the book? He purified their minds. They themselves then were the books of the New Testament. But where are the vessels of the ministry? They are themselves. And where is the tabernacle? Again, they are; for I will dwell in them, He says, and walk in them. 2 Corinthians 6:16
But they were not sprinkled with scarlet wool, nor yet with hyssop. Why was this? Because the cleansing was not bodily but spiritual, and the blood was spiritual. How? It flowed not from the body of irrational animals, but from the Body prepared by the Spirit. With this blood not Moses but Christ sprinkled us, through the word which was spoken; This is the blood of the New Testament, for the remission of sins. This word, instead of hyssop, having been dipped in the blood, sprinkles all. And there indeed the body was cleansed outwardly, for the purifying was bodily; but here, since the purifying is spiritual, it enters into the soul, and cleanses it, not being simply sprinkled over, but gushing forth in our souls. The initiated understand what is said. And in their case indeed one sprinkled just the surface; but he who was sprinkled washed it off again; for surely he did not go about continually stained with blood. But in the case of the soul it is not so, but the blood is mixed with its very substance, making it vigorous and pure, and leading it to the very unapproachable beauty.
Henceforward then he shows that His death is the cause not only of confirmation, but also of purification. For inasmuch as death was thought to be an odious thing, and especially that of the cross, he says that it purified, even a precious purification, and in regard to greater things. Therefore the sacrifices preceded, because of this blood. Therefore the lambs; everything was for this cause.
. They think it's compatible with their theology when it really isn't. But that's a whole other thing.