I am you because I'm inside you... your consciousness. Like in a dream: I'm your subconscious mind. Everything you see is you... your mind.
Snakelord-- Jesus is God
- Thread starter Quigly
- Start date
I am you because I'm inside you... your consciousness. Like in a dream: I'm your subconscious mind. Everything you see is you... your mind.
Hellblade8
Valued Senior Member
I think Jesus has a definate divine source, perhaps Lucifer's replacment? Jesus is special, and is considered greater than all the angels in heaven, but He is not God in the sense of them being one person. He is if I read it correctly, the direct son of God. So in a way He is God, but He is not God.
Alright Yorda, calm down.
No disrespect meant, but you have nothing to say that I really need to hear. You're not inside me, above me, below me or next to me. You're just some confused young man on the other side of the world and that's that. If you think otherwise, fine. Kindly don't share it with me.
L.S.D. is a helluva drug isn't it?
This is what you do. Talk to a schizophrenic and write down all the incongruent ideas and reasoning they come up with. Then take note of the complete disregard of reality and start writing a book believing in and being self-amazed that every thought and fantasy that comes to mind is actual fact never failing to assume that every concept you come up with must be from god and therefore true. Use this moronic ego to the hilt like a bad front wheel alignment and a complete mess of superfiction will be the result. Bury the book and thousands of years from now, idiots will be scratching their head trying to figure out something that isn't there and because it doesn't make sense, people will assume it has greater meaning than they can comprehend thus magnifying the idiocy as sacred and meaningful other than what it is. That's the biggest joke of all time and I would be laughing so hard, holding a joint in one hand and lsd tripping.
Hellblade8
Valued Senior Member
Or, they'd be wondering what kind of cult it came from given that it'd have no actual religious holding, and came from a time when records are kept fairly well, not to mentioned the ideas are likely to be some stupid shit you threw together, so most likely they'd assume your book belonged to a few cultists and that's it.
You don't realize how utterly stupid your statement really is in light of the fact way back then there was even LESS intellectual integrity or recordkeeping or actual understanding of how things really are PERIOD.
Stupid shit??? Cult??? YOU CAN STILL SAY THAT ABOUT THE BIBLE AND THOSE WHO WROTE IT!!
Wow, wow, wow, really. The stupidity of people who think like you is quite PROFOUND. Your inability to distinguish REALITY from societal programming is aaamazing. So if one decides to define the same thing something else it automatically makes it something else. So if you transcribe stupid shit over and over and pass it down, it automatically means the contents are valid and not stupid shit? Right. Genius, just genius. What's it like having such a dishonest hole for a brain?
SnakeLord said:
I'm right here. That's all I am, a bunch of letters on this screen...
I'm not a real human being.
Life is a powerful drug which Buddha and many others used.
I truly wish that were the case.
---
Anyway, TS:
It's an interesting statement to make isn't it? So let's question what he means when he says that. The first step to understanding the statement can be seen in Matthew 10:7-9
"'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. 'So they are no longer two, but one."
Now, is anyone here going to argue that they and their wife are one being? Most certainly not. So now ask yourself what a person would mean if they were to say "my wife and I are one".
Some would refer to the statement as meaning "spiritually", (as Yorda did, although he doesn't exist apparently so maybe he didn't), and in essence he's right - although I would substitute "spiritually" for "of one mind". Of course my statement can indeed cause more problems for certain theists who now might think my wifes brain and my brain are the same thing - but that error aside, this is what "god and I are one" refers to, exampled perfectly in Matthew.
Hope that helped.
Last edited:
Thanks SnakeLord. My thoughts precisely... 
Sorry for the delay, busy weekend...
For man to define God is very limiting in general as we define based on what we know and sometimes have a hard time with what we don't know. For instance, suppose we found a new element tomorrow, it would be defined in terms that scientists already know. It is made of x molecules and kind of looks and acts like Radon or whatever if you get my drift. So if we define God we say God is love, God is Just, God is merciful. Well what is that. Man defines love in a human way. We experience love in a desire to have our own needs fulfilled. So we most likely get our view of God's love wrong...like we think that it is conditional because it is tough to understand unconditional love. So bringing it back around, could God allow a part of himself to experience life as a human, with human parameters? Not to sound all scifish, but just to ask the question.
I'm not sure what translation you are using, but I see the closest match to the original in the KJV, which says... "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
I see no greek word Son in the original, so I am not sure what version you are looking at, but obviously not an accurate one. I will give you the fact that the word no man in original has one translation of nobody or no one. So for that I won't completely toss out your line of thought, though I obviously wanted to point out that your reference seems flawed. We though come to an obvious question again. Can God make a rock so big be that he can't pick it up? Or if God has free will, he obviously is not omniscient. If he doesn't have free will, than he is obviously not God. All of these are ploys again to understand God in human terms. It is obvious that we will be limited in defining God this way...understanding God this way.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jhn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Jhn 1:6 ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.
Jhn 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe.
Jhn 1:8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.
Jhn 1:9 [That] true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
I'm not sure why this was glossed over or not mentioned, 2 things I want to mention. 1. The word was God. (verse 1) 2. The word was made(to become) flesh (verse 14)
This is where probably an understanding of salvation may help. If you recall the old testament they had to sacrifice animals to make atonement. This was an inadequate, but the only available system at time to be connected relationaly to God. There were certain "clean" animals that were used in sacrifice...my guess would be that those "clean" animals retained some innocence after the fall of adam and therefore were used for atonement.
While Jesus being made as a man for the purpose of an eternal sacrifice now stands mediating for humanity. Just like in the old testament that they sacrificed for atonement, now Jesus is our ongoing everlasting atonement. Without Jesus standing in the gap, we would have no chance to walk with God and to know God as the first Adam once did. You brought up that Jesus was first born of creation. This is a parrallel to the first adam. It is a spiritual defining of Jesus not a literal he was made first.
Again sorry for the delay, hopefully something in what I wrote may have sparked a consideration for my perspective and I hope to see more of your perspective.
For man to define God is very limiting in general as we define based on what we know and sometimes have a hard time with what we don't know. For instance, suppose we found a new element tomorrow, it would be defined in terms that scientists already know. It is made of x molecules and kind of looks and acts like Radon or whatever if you get my drift. So if we define God we say God is love, God is Just, God is merciful. Well what is that. Man defines love in a human way. We experience love in a desire to have our own needs fulfilled. So we most likely get our view of God's love wrong...like we think that it is conditional because it is tough to understand unconditional love. So bringing it back around, could God allow a part of himself to experience life as a human, with human parameters? Not to sound all scifish, but just to ask the question.
I'm not sure what translation you are using, but I see the closest match to the original in the KJV, which says... "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only."
I see no greek word Son in the original, so I am not sure what version you are looking at, but obviously not an accurate one. I will give you the fact that the word no man in original has one translation of nobody or no one. So for that I won't completely toss out your line of thought, though I obviously wanted to point out that your reference seems flawed. We though come to an obvious question again. Can God make a rock so big be that he can't pick it up? Or if God has free will, he obviously is not omniscient. If he doesn't have free will, than he is obviously not God. All of these are ploys again to understand God in human terms. It is obvious that we will be limited in defining God this way...understanding God this way.
If you don't mind, I will post the john versus.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Jhn 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Jhn 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
Jhn 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
Jhn 1:6 ¶ There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.
Jhn 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe.
Jhn 1:8 He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.
Jhn 1:9 [That] true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
I'm not sure why this was glossed over or not mentioned, 2 things I want to mention. 1. The word was God. (verse 1) 2. The word was made(to become) flesh (verse 14)
Outside of what he was spiritually doing for the earth, it is my belief that for a period of time, he limited himself to take on a form of a man. For that time, I believe he was not omniscient, omnipotent, or omnipresent, but I believe he retains his full rights right now. He went through a season in his life as a man, limiting his Godly abilities.
This is where probably an understanding of salvation may help. If you recall the old testament they had to sacrifice animals to make atonement. This was an inadequate, but the only available system at time to be connected relationaly to God. There were certain "clean" animals that were used in sacrifice...my guess would be that those "clean" animals retained some innocence after the fall of adam and therefore were used for atonement.
While Jesus being made as a man for the purpose of an eternal sacrifice now stands mediating for humanity. Just like in the old testament that they sacrificed for atonement, now Jesus is our ongoing everlasting atonement. Without Jesus standing in the gap, we would have no chance to walk with God and to know God as the first Adam once did. You brought up that Jesus was first born of creation. This is a parrallel to the first adam. It is a spiritual defining of Jesus not a literal he was made first.
Don't get me wrong, I do accept and understand his importance - hell, nobody is my friend unless they accept and love my daughter. She is the world to me and if anyone has issue with her they have issue with me. But my daughter is not me regardless to that. She is the most important, but she is not me.
There are many more quotes I could go into but I feel that this simple undeniable distinction between 'god' and his son is enough to make the point.
Christianity is polytheistic - and the worship doesn't even go to the god, (that's not ultimately a bad thing, I'd rather you kiss my daughters feet than mine).
That's a start, we'll see how it progresses
Snake
Again sorry for the delay, hopefully something in what I wrote may have sparked a consideration for my perspective and I hope to see more of your perspective.
Yes. In the beginning, it was God and God's Law and prophecies- His Word. Verse 14 says that the Law came to pass, that is, the prophecy, the Word of God, was fulfilled. The prophecy of Jesus. Because Jesus followed the Word of God. That's a metaphor for "Jesus followed the Word of God". The Word became visible to us because he followed the Law.
Those verses suggest that anyone who receive God is a son of God, just like Jesus. The verses clearly suggest that Jesus is NOT the only Son of God. In fact, Jesus said:
Which clearly includes me.
I suggest you read a little bit on figures of speech. Start with the one called "metaphor".
I disagree and here is why:
This series of verses also correlate(sp) the agreement of Jesus as the "Word" rather than a principle or a law.
Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See [thou do it] not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
Rev 19:11 ¶ And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him [was] called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Rev 19:12 His eyes [were] as a flame of fire, and on his head [were] many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
Rev 19:13 And he [was] clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called "The Word of God".
The verses indicate to those that receive him, him being Jesus, to them he gave power to become the sons of God through faith and through the works of calvary.
How does that prove that Jesus is the Word of God?
Plus, not even the Catholic church agrees with the book of revelations. The only reason why the book is there, it is because it is the only account that we have for future prophecies. If you are going to quote a book like revelations, you might as well quote one of the lost Gospels, such as the one where Jesus, as a child, transformed another child in a tree, for example.
Nope. The verses clearly say whoever receives God- not Jesus.
And... are you saying that we CAN become sons of God, then? That Jesus is not the only son of God?
The writer John identified in John that the word was God. The writer John identified in revelation that the vision of Jesus was given the name Word of God. I was just showing you that the writer wasn't identifying at the moment with the Word being a law or principle, but was actually Jesus.
Im not catholic and think they are pretty wack with a lot of their motivations, but i also believe there is plenty of historical proof that much of revelations has already been fulfilled. As far as whether it should or shouldn't. I think it should and most of christianity thinks it should, and it is in most all bibles.
Seems like this would be easier if you would read the passages again:
Jhn 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
He being Jesus was in the world. The world was made by him and the world knew him not. They didn't recognize Jesus, because they expected something different.
Jhn 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. The place he grew up rejected him (end of mathew 13)
Jhn 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
Received Christ (him being christ) and belief on his name
Jhn 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Reborn...spiritually. See John 3 for more context of this concept.
Jhn 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jesus, the word as in Revelation, was made flesh (human). He dwelt among men and saw that he was begotten from God as a son. Men saw the miracles, the grace, the truth (sermon on the mount, ect..) If you recall the conversation Jesus had with Peter regarding who the people say he is and then he asked peter who he said that he is and peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. He said My father in heaven revealed that to you.
Adopted sons. Those that are reborn in the spirit can be called sons of God. Our sonship does not makes a God, but makes us coheirs to the kingdom of heaven.
So you are saying that just because the word "Jesus" and the words "Word of God" are in the same chapter, then "Jesus" = "Word of God". ?
Let's see your historical "proof".
The passage never stated Jesus. God is in the world. And the world was made by God, and the world still does not know God.
Of course they were! They expected God and instead got a revolutionary rabbi!!
What do you think "received"him and "believed in his name" means? It means they agree with what he said. The passage clearly states that whoever agrees with his message of peace and love becomes a son of God. Well, they already are.
Everyone is born of God. God is the only one who can give life.
No. You are reading it literally. "Word" is a metaphor for law and prophecies. The passage says that we saw God's prophecy come true.
Yes. The son of God- not God.
Where does it say that?
Nope. See the thread "Apparently, We Are Sons of God".
Also, notice how Jesus talks about being a "body". Partaking in his "body". That's a metaphor for an organization - or those who believe in what he preaches.
Also notice how he says "the Father and I are One" and how he also says when a men marries his wife they become One. Again, that's a metaphor for working in one accord, with one mind, one direction. It signifies unity. Not literal.
So please tell me, why do you want so much for Jesus to be God? You rather worship Jesus just because you can "see" him?
No, I was trying to show you that two books by the same author at different times both identified Jesus with the Title of "Word" to show you it was literal and not to mean law or principles.
dont have time right now. Google "Nero Revelations "
The whole passage is about Jesus. Don't know how you are missing this.
They were expecting a warrior and he came as a pascifist.Of course they were! They expected God and instead got a revolutionary rabbi!!
It is confirmed elsewhere in scripture that salvation comes from receiving christ and believing on him.
John 8 44 says some people's father is the devil, so how is everyone born of God?
Disagree and thought it was obvious why it was literal, but dont think you are seeing the connection.
I am just telling you that scripturally and accepted doctrine of the christian faith accept Jesus as being God. God the Father, God the Son, God the Spirit as One Unified God.
It has never stopped the religious of the world from thinking they can define away. Simply put, nobody does "know", people assume and guess, make believe and desire - always on an emotional basis.
So the theist goes about defining their god down to what colour socks it wears and then the minute the definition is questioned and shown faulty the theist quickly backtracks to their safety zone of "god works in mysterious ways", "god is unknowable", "the book can't be understood by non-believers", "oh, that part of the bible is only metaphorical".
It is a constant and deliberate shifting of goal posts to protect the theists emotional condition - his desires and hopes.
So if we can't define what a "god" is then let's not bother. Let's dispose of ancient manuscripts because they were no better off, let's stop worshipping something that we simply cannot define or understand. More importantly, (because I don't care what an individual chooses to believe), let's stop indoctrinating our children. Let's cease with the systematic and calculated abuse of the young. Let's just turn round, hold hands and say in one big voice: "I don't know".
At that time the gods will come out of the clouds and say "finally, humanity is actually getting somewhere".
If we were to at least define a god being as "omniscient", what exactly would be the point or need of such a thing? Indeed what exactly is the point or need for our existence? (that's the tougher question).
Furthermore, what is the need of getting oneself killed to 'save humankind'? What is the need to order animal sacrifies etc etc at any stage in our existence from an omniscient, omnipotent being? This really needs to be explored but alas the only honest outcome is that... there isn't one. There is no need or reason, nothing is accomplished, there is no goal.. The ultimate destruction of a pointless universe and the creation of an afterlife for the good folk. All of this right now is worthless. It is the death and burning of people for the mere sake of it with some promise that things will get better.
I would at this stage, if we were going to give definitions, use Dawkins quote, "the most evil, sexist, racist, homophobic..."
It is the only one that upon reading the OT there can be no doubt of.
Let's question your claim for a moment using 2 different methods:
1) Ok, so the version I use is "obviously not accurate" because it differs to the KJV. The thing is, merely by a quick glance the following all use the same statement:
new international version
new living translation
holman christian standard
new american standard
amplified bible
the message
english standard version
Contemporary English Version
New Revised Standard Version
Revised Standard Version
American Standard Version
New International Reader's Version
Today's New International Version
Worldwide English (New Testament)
And to be honest that was just a quick look.
So what you are saying here is that all these bibles are wrong, and the KJV - generally cited as the worst existing translation is correct. This is itself is quite the claim.
However... and here is the bitch of bitches. The point that is going to rip your underpants off and make your eyeballs melt.. Are you ready? Ok..
2) I would like briefly to quote from the KJV if I might. Let's hmmm.. Let's take a look at Mark 13:32. This is what the KJV says:
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father". - king james version
I'll leave you with that for a moment.
Massive difference. The question is can 1 god know something while not knowing it - especially given that he knows everything - at the same time.
It's not a ploy, it shows that christianity is polytheistic. There's nothing wrong with that at all, is there a reason god can't have kids, (distinct but also powerful entities)? Birds do it, bees do it, even educated fleas do it.. Can't god?
I'll also mention 2 things although the first is a side issue:
1) John wrote John and in John says that John is cool. Perhaps it's just me but that bugs the hell out of me.
2) The "word" is clearly not the complete word as it doesn't know some of the word. "So god, when's the end of the universe?" "I dunno". The word could have been born of virgins, walked on water, stopped the cosmos from expanding and won every hand of poker, but when it comes to knowledge - 'the word' is lacking. And the thing is, that "lacking word" is of the most vital importance to all of existence. He could tell mankind how to bury poop, (leviticus), but not the thing of most importance? To that he says "I don't know". Take into account he does not say "I don't want to tell you", or "now is not the time to tell you", but "I don't know".
If this being is god, what does that say? Never to my knowledge has management been looked upon favourably when they say they don't know. P45 anyone?
Colossians states that jesus is "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature" (KJV).
We too are supposedly "made in the image of god" - and this statement reflects that jesus too was made, and made in the image of god. Question is, is god a created being?
While his father was omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent etc. Worship him by all means - he is after all the chosen intermediary between man and god, but he is not god or the one god, (he can be some second god) by the fact that one knows, one does not.
1) Explain why it's inadequate.
2) Explain what the death of an animal or a god actually accomplishes.. Where is the need or value of killing something? Why would god require the death of anything to somehow make it seem like humans are now ok or forgiven for their human behaviour?
"Kill a cow and you're forgiven for masturbating.."
"Why? It's a cow ffs, it says 'moo', chews grass and does big poops.. What in the name of Zeus's butthole does a dead cow accomplish?"
3) If god never died and can't die, what has been sacrificed?
Why in the name of Thor's winky does god pretending to kill himself mean we now have a chance to walk with him? The idea is so nonsensical it almost makes me pee my pants with a mixture of amusement and disgust.
Not a problem, people have lives outside of sciforums
(It's debateable with some *cough* sam)As far as christianity, it is a held belief to follow the bible. Whether or not you believe it is accurate doesn't seem to distract the idea that the old and new testament flow together. Old testament more of a history lesson following a tribe of people, but you see some prophecy of Christ in the old testament. The new testament a picture of grace and forgiveness. A side of God that seems to only be fully released to humankind with a blameless sacrifice.(christ)
I wont disagree that at times I have gone, "I don't really know the answer to that question"...or the answer I have is probably not easy to understand. Christians have criteria to measure God against...doesn't mean that we know everything about him because for all we know there is another universe and another race and things are completely different there...thing is, by saying God is Love, we ascribe an attribute that we know to a God that we don't fully know. So if you are feeling unloved or something, you look and see from the accepted doctrine...the bible, that God is Love. So if I am not feeling loved, maybe there is another power at work to try to stop God from meeting me relationally and meeting the need of Love. Hope that makes sense.
Thing I see is that people since the very beginning have always sought a higher power...whether a god or gods. Religion has been since the beginning. I feel like it is innate in people to search for God..To try to know or understand or hope in a god. For me, the one that seems to take the test of time and survive is christianity. The one that seems most adequate to me is christianity.
The point I feel like God was trying to make in existence was to make a complex creature that was a likeness of himself (like a son), and walk in relationship with him. To not go in great detail, it could be possible that God allowed sin to enter the world so that man could know grace and forgiveness. Kind of like if you never knew wrong, you wouldn't be able to know right. or vice versa. So if you were never in a fallen state, you could never achieve a state of forgiveness. I think God wanted to reveal more of himself in a relational way and this is his way of doing so.
Adam and Eve sinned and God killed an animal to clothe them. The next instance you see about an animal being sacrificed was with adam and eve's kids. Cain and Abel. Somewhere from the fall and the children of the fall Sacrifice was implemented as a way of connecting to God. Adam was considered the first Adam who was given dominion to the earth, but with the responsibility came some boundaries. When he walked outside of obedience to those boundaries, the rights of the land were ripped from his hands by Satan.(evil) So at that point it seems, the land was cursed, mankind was cursed, animals were cursed. So for all of those years, man had regulations and laws and governing on how they should live in order to have connection with God. You see how the old testament is full of weird laws and rules because it was very much about the outside about externally showing God that you are willing to try to stay connected to him (through doing works)
Jesus became the 2nd Adam to try to restore what was lost in the beginning. (Fellowship with God). So he walked in obedience to God and was tempted in the desert by evil and abstained from evil and in turn his sacrifice was in a sense turning the spiritual clocks back to creation where Adam walked in the garden relationally with God.
you got me...you sneaky guy you. Your original post was a scripture from Matthew 24:36, of which I commented, not mark 13:32.
There was a John and also a John the baptist, so I'm not sure if that is what you weren't sure about. As far as the books. I was just trying to show a parallel as it seems that if John were talking about a law or principle, revelations would reaffirm that the Word of God was in principle or law, but doesn't seem to do that.
The "word" in the beginning was an activation...almost like God speaking words and the "word" producing the results. Don't think of "Word" as bible, because that isn't what it is meant by it. It is the hebrew word Logos which is a living breathing word. Almost like an activating word.
Yes, he took on the role of the first adam. This is spiritual in my opinion.
Yes, image and likeness. Do you think it means that God has two legs and two arms, a dick and spiked hair?
And that is what we differ on and are discussing
Man could not adhere to all of the laws that the old testament had. They call the old testament the LAW because thats what it was...a long series of different can and cannots. Man can't keep every letter of the law and so it was inadequate in drawing man into relationship with God again.
I touched on this above a bit. I don't know why animals was the method.
It was about obedience. Death is a result of sin. By Christ dying, he took on himself the sins of the world which resulted in physical death. (as a sacrifice) Though spiritually he never sinned and walked in obedience to God. Death, which is a result of sin, couldn't not hold him...thus he was resurrected.
Adult diapers for the win.