Christ's 'Sacrifice'

mountainyman

This is a question.

Jesus Christ the son of God lived on earth 2000 years ago for 33 years.
At the end of his life he was tortured to death.
This is his sacrifice by which he redeemed the whole world.

But so what. He was God eternal and omnipotent. Dying on earth was no big deal.

His physical body would have died at some point 33 years or 103 years what is the difference to God?

Many many people have died for causes and beliefs. Is crucifixion really worse than cancer?

Or am I confused about what the sacrifice was.

MM

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

But so what. He was God eternal and omnipotent. Dying on earth was no big deal.
...
Or am I confused about what the sacrifice was.

No, thats about it.

People always say that God gave up his only son for us, but then he didn't really. He was resurrected a few hours later. The idea of the sacrafice balancing out our sin goes back to the hold Hewbrew idea of balance in the universe.

Its true he did die a not very nice death, but then (as the Passion of the Christ episode of South Park pointed out) so did a lot of people back then.

How the death of Jesus is justified in the Christian church depends on how you talk to. I'd imagine that the next post after mine will explain that Christ died so he could be resurrected, and this resurrection would be proof of Gods existance and love to inspire the masses.

But as Scofflaw (or maybe it was Atheists) pointed out this wasn't exactly a mind blowing example of God's existance since hardly anyone saw it (in fact no one saw the actual resurrection). Moving all the planets to spell out "Morning" would probably be more impressive evidence.

robindch

> Or am I confused about what the sacrifice was.

A lot of people are a bit confused about it, because according to the story, god was the victim (Jesus), god was the executioner (sending himself as Jesus to known death), god was the judge (of the success) and god was the prize-awarder (life after death to all).

Makes it difficult to work out what was really sacrificed, whom it was sacrificed to, and for what reason exactly.

UU

No Wicknight, I don't accept Jesus as the son of God either. Perhaps he thought he was dying for our sins or maybe even more logical, he gave up his life for what he believed in like a martyr. And yes, many Christians will frown at me for saying this and say I'm talking balony but that is what I choose to believe in. His death has a lot of metaphoric meaning to it also. Try this website. I found it an interesting read: Link

People are free to take their own interpretation of the concept if they want. What you said, Wicknight, is very interesting with the Hebrew idea of a balance of the universe. Sure St. Paul was also crucified in Rome like Jesus. Many say it's a replication of the whole concept.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

People always say that God gave up his only son for us, but then he didn't really. He was resurrected a few hours later. The idea of the sacrafice balancing out our sin goes back to the hold Hewbrew idea of balance in the universe.

More God's idea of having to sacrifice to remember who God is and what He does for us.

Wicknight wrote:

How the death of Jesus is justified in the Christian church depends on how you talk to. I'd imagine that the next post after mine will explain that Christ died so he could be resurrected, and this resurrection would be proof of Gods existance and love to inspire the masses.

Not just to defeat death, but to offer Himself as the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Someone once said 'how many leaders are willing to sacrifice their own lives for their followers, as Jesus did?

Wicknight wrote:

But as Scofflaw (or maybe it was Atheists) pointed out this wasn't exactly a mind blowing example of God's existance since hardly anyone saw it (in fact no one saw the actual resurrection). Moving all the planets to spell out "Morning" would probably be more impressive evidence.

It was witnessed by over 500 people, the day was darkened, the stone slab that seperated the people from the holy of holies was split down the middle. I also love Matthew 25:52 "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life." He raised Lazarus after he had been dead 4 days. The list is pretty impressive.

If the planets were lined up to spell morning it still wouldn't impress you guys because you would try and explain it away without reference to God's handiwork.

UU

Yes but Brian that is what you choose to believe in. According to Islam as in the Qur'an, Jesus wasn't the son of God and he didn't die on the cross! See different ways he died. Many Muslims hold this concept and only see Jesus as a prophet. Faith is a special and delicate thing which changes according to each being. It was impossible for me to accept Jesus as the son of God and giving up his life for our salvation and all that stuff.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not just to defeat death, but to offer Himself as the sacrifice to end all sacrifices. Someone once said 'how many leaders are willing to sacrifice their own lives for their followers, as Jesus did?[/quotes]
Lots actually. The history of Ireland is littered with leaders dying for the cause. And they didn't know they would be resurrected or certain of an after life.

BrianCalgary wrote:

It was witnessed by over 500 people

The resurrection itself was witnessed by 500? I'm not sure thats quite true, do you have a Biblical verse?

I can't actually find Mathew 25:52. Do you mean Mathew 27? If you are that is the death of Jesus isn't it, not the resurrection.

BrianCalgary wrote:

If the planets were lined up to spell morning it still wouldn't impress you guys because you would try and explain it away without reference to God's handiwork.

No actually that would be pretty impressive to me. I might not believe it was the Christian God though.

mountainyman

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not just to defeat death, but to offer Himself as the sacrifice to end all sacrifices.

Please elaborate.
Before Christ's sacrifice there was no way to be free of sin. In his death he gave us the greatest gift imaginable; that we could be free of sin and receive life everlasting. But why did he have to be crucified. He just had to say it.
The thing is that Christ's time on Earth seems like an illustration of God's love. An illustration that we are more value than the sparrows. He also accepted death, for our sake. But he was God. It was no hassle.
Or is it that he was crucified because that's just what happened to him. He was a powerless poor teacher and he was crushed by the Romans and the Jews because that's what would have happened if hadn't been God.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Someone once said 'how many leaders are willing to sacrifice their own lives for their followers, as Jesus did?.

Bobby Sands and Padraig Pearse to name just 2.

MM

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

Please elaborate.

The Hewbrews had (have?) a concept of balance. You did something wrong, sinful, you sacraficed something to make it right in atonement for it.

Jesus was the ultimate sacrafice, because only the sacrafice of the son of God could atone for the sins of all humanity.

Dont really understand it mayself, but there you go.

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

The history of Ireland is littered with leaders dying for the cause. And they didn't know they would be resurrected or certain of an after life.

I'd say most of them were certain of an after life. Though Connolly was an Atheist.

MM

Fallen Seraph

BrianCalgary wrote:

the day was darkened

To quibble on this point, it's mentioned in only one of the four gospels and the only other reference anywhere is from a writer who lived a hundred years later. The sky darkening before nightfall (and for three days I think I've heard somewhere) would be the kinda thing people might notice, and as such more people would probably have recorded it. But all we get is ONE gospel writer mentioning it... If it had happened you'd think that at least the other gospel writers'd mention it...

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Lots actually. The history of Ireland is littered with leaders dying for the cause. And they didn't know they would be resurrected or certain of an after life..

You could argue thatthey were just the footsoldiers or pawns for the political leaders.

Wicknight wrote:

The resurrection itself was witnessed by 500? I'm not sure thats quite true, do you have a Biblical verse?

1 Corinthians 15 :6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Wicknight wrote:

I can't actually find Mathew 25:52. Do you mean Mathew 27? If you are that is the death of Jesus isn't it, not the resurrection.

just testing:D The dead are raised at the time of Jesus death. As death has been defeated.

BrianCalgary

Fallen Seraph wrote:

If it had happened you'd think that at least the other gospel writers'd mention it...

Why? From what I understand it has been mentioned in other ancient writings.

BrianCalgary

mountainyman wrote:

Please elaborate.
Before Christ's sacrifice there was no way to be free of sin.

Every yom kippur? when the sacrifice was made at the temple. And then you messed up again.

mountainyman wrote:

In his death he gave us the greatest gift imaginable; that we could be free of sin and receive life everlasting. But why did he have to be crucified. He just had to say it.

The nastiest way to die. The ultimate pain, so no one could say to Jesus, but you don't understand.

mountainyman wrote:

The thing is that Christ's time on Earth seems like an illustration of God's love. An illustration that we are more value than the sparrows. He also accepted death, for our sake. But he was God. It was no hassle.
Or is it that he was crucified because that's just what happened to him. He was a powerless poor teacher and he was crushed by the Romans and the Jews because that's what would have happened if hadn't been God..

Part two is what those who killed Him thought of Him. But poof three days later He's about and the problem is bigger than what it was when He was human.

mountainyman wrote:

Bobby Sands and Padraig Pearse to name just 2.

MM

Don't know Padraig Pearse, I would argue that Bobby Sands was a regular soldier in the IRA, not one of the generals.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

1 Corinthians 15 :6
After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

Not to get technical, but that isn't the ressurection itself.

How many actually saw Jesus dead one minute and alive the next?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

You could argue thatthey were just the footsoldiers or pawns for the political leaders.

Well firstly thats wrong, a lot of them were leaders. Also I'm not really sure why that matters. If a leader decides to sacrafice himself for a cause is that much different than a "foot solider" deciding to sacrafice himself for a cause?

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Not to get technical, but that isn't the ressurection itself.

How many actually saw Jesus dead one minute and alive the next?

The point is that Jesus wandered around for forty days after He was crucified and over 500 people witnessed Him being alive after He was killed on the cross.

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Well firstly thats wrong, a lot of them were leaders. Also I'm not really sure why that matters. If a leader decides to sacrafice himself for a cause is that much different than a "foot solider" deciding to sacrafice himself for a cause?

Because a soldier does it under orders. He does not decide that he will go out and get himself killed for the cause without taking a few of th eenemy with him. Jesus lived His whole life for the purpose of being tortured and crucified in order that those who follow Him could have life.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Because a soldier does it under orders. He does not decide that he will go out and get himself killed for the cause

Well again that is a bit of an unfounded argument. Lots of "foot soldiers" had decided to sacrafice themselves when they have not been ordered too. The classic example is the soldier who threw himself on a live grenade to protect his commrades.

I can think of a large number of examples of people who sacraficed themselves for a good cause, leaders, "foot soldiers" or neither. Only a few days ago I was watching a documentary about the monks who set themselves unfire to protest the Vietnam war.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Jesus lived His whole life for the purpose of being tortured and crucified in order that those who follow Him could have life.

Which would kinda lessing his "scarafice", rather than be a reason to be more impressed by it, since its not really a sacrafice if you are meant to do it all along.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The point is that Jesus wandered around for forty days after He was crucified and over 500 people witnessed Him being alive after He was killed on the cross.

Well you are getting into a whole different set of arguments there (for a start are they sure it was Jesus .. didn't most people intially don't recongnise him)

But as I said originally, no one actually witnessed the resurrection itself.

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

Well again that is a bit of an unfounded argument. Lots of "foot soldiers" had decided to sacrafice themselves when they have not been ordered too. The classic example is the soldier who threw himself on a live grenade to protect his commrades.

I am inclined to agree with wickknight here. After all many people have been martyred for (and I suppose not only for) the Christian faith; some have died even more horrible deaths than Christ. (Though it isn't a competition).

Wicknight wrote:

Which would kinda lessing his "sacrifice", rather than be a reason to be more impressed by it, since its not really a sacrifice if you are meant to do it all along.

I don't agree at all. If he knew that he would do it from the time he rejected Satan in the desert (for example) how does that lessen his sacrifice. God didn't have to die for our sins. Is his free acceptance of death an illustration of his love of us.

I just find it a bit hard to understand.

MM

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

If he knew that he would do it from the time he rejected Satan in the desert (for example) how does that lessen his sacrifice.

That isn't really what was claimed. It was claimed that the only reason he existed in the first place was to be sacraficed for our sins.

So he didn't really decide to do it in the desert with Satan, he has created to do it, it was his nature to begin with.

If God creates a human form to be sacraficed for our sins is it a big shock that he ends up sacraficing himself for our sins?

Fallen Seraph

BrianCalgary wrote:

Why? From what I understand it has been mentioned in other ancient writings.

As is my understanding, only one other. And there is also a reasonable amount of doubt with regards to its veracity.

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

If God creates a human form to be sacraficed for our sins is it a big shock that he ends up sacraficing himself for our sins?

What does it matter if it is a shock or not?

What I mean is this:

Jesus was given up to death, a death he freely accepted. Which is a point of common ground whether you believe he is God or was a patriotic Jewish carpenter.

Now do Christians believe that through this sacrifice he redeemed our sins? Surely the Christ child the baby in the manger is an even more potent symbol (if that is the appropriate word) of Gods love for humanity than that death. God at his mother's breast and who is that mother? She is an ordinary teenage girl.

Is the crucifixion a symbol of the redemption or is it the redemption itself.
That's my question, of sorts.

MM

mountainyman

Fallen Seraph wrote:

As is my understanding, only one other. And there is also a reasonable amount of doubt with regards to its veracity.

I don't see that it matters much one way or another. There are well attested miracles but it doesn't mean they are all true.

'In this sign conquer' for example.
(of course that's where the trouble began)

MM

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

What does it matter if it is a shock or not?

What I mean is I would be more impressed by someone giving their life for a cause than Jesus dying on the cross, since the first person is giving up the rest of their life where as Jesus is simply fufilling his mission on Earth, his purpose for existing in the first place, and returing to heaven.

I'm not saying this was or was not important, but the original claim (by Brain I think) was the jesus' "sacrafice" was some how bigger than all the rest of the people who have died for a good cause, when in fact I appears it was not really

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

...where as Jesus is simply fufilling his mission on Earth, his purpose for existing in the first place, and returing to heaven...

In the context of his divinity maybe.
In the context of his humanity; there is a difference between accepring death and seeking it.

Jesus dies for his beliefs but that doesn't mean he had a 'Christ complex' and yearned for a martyrs crown.* Perhaps he was aware of all he wouldn't have and wanted it. As in the Temptation of Christ.

* unlike Bobby Sands and Padraig Pearse
MM

Zombrex

mountainyman wrote:

Jesus dies for his beliefs but that doesn't mean he had a 'Christ complex' and yearned for a martyrs crown.

Well technically he did have "Christ complex" But I see the point you are making. He didn't want to die, but did so because it was necessary.

mountainyman wrote:

Perhaps he was aware of all he wouldn't have and wanted it. As in the Temptation of Christ.

Well to be honest I'm not totally up on the beliefs of Christs death. I don't know if he knew he would die from an early age, or if he knew he would be resurrected. He seemed to know he was the son of God, and as such he knew that there would be a heaven after death

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Well to be honest I'm not totally up on the beliefs of Christs death. I don't know if he knew he would die from an early age, or if he knew he would be resurrected. He seemed to know he was the son of God, and as such he knew that there would be a heaven after death

He did know about His impending death and torture. In the Garden of Gethsemane on the night He was arrested He prayed and asked the Father that if possible to have this cup removed, but that God's will be done. He then went off and did what had to be done. He could have called legions of Angels to free Him. But He didn't, because He, out of Hi sintense love, understood He had to do this to offer Wicknight salvation.

mountainyman

BrianCalgary wrote:

...He could have called legions of Angels to free Him...

He had made this decision already when He said to the devil
[FONTCOLOR="Red"]'it is written put not your God to the test'[/FONT]

BrianCalgary wrote:

...out of His intense love, understood He had to do this to offer Wicknight salvation.

That is what I don't understand. He had been made incarnate. He had by becoming man shown that he was like us. He had a mother, worked, loved his (literal) brothers and sisters. God could offer salvation however he chose.

MM

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

He had to do this to offer Wicknight salvation.

Why exactly?

What I don't get is what rule he was following. Why did he (Jesus or God) have to do this, as opposed to anything else. Is it the old Hewbrew idea of balance in the universe, or is it something else

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Why exactly?

What I don't get is what rule he was following. Why did he (Jesus or God) have to do this, as opposed to anything else. Is it the old Hewbrew idea of balance in the universe, or is it something else

I do love your questions Wicknight. I'll try my best to answer this one.

First off, I'm not big on rules, unless it's playing a game. In the beginning God set up the sacrificial system. Sacrifices made to God, not because He needed them but we did in remembering His sovereignty. The sacrifice of the best of your harvest was a way to thank God for His provision of food. (Jump in anytime you Jewish folk as I don't have my Hebrew feat info with me). On Atonement Day it was right for a person to offer a sacrifice in order to be washed of their sins. The problem was that it had to be done yearly because the sacrifice only took care of sins already committed. In the end the sacrifice is not made in order to satisfy a hungry God, but to provide for a needy people.

The only people who took part where the Jews who developed an attitude that they alone could be in relationship with God. No one else could. I would gather that God got miffed and wanted to take care of the sin of evryone for all time, because He seeks relationship with all His creation. The only way to do this was to send Himself as a man, to live and suffer as a man, to feel hunger, thirst, betrayal and the other crap we put up with and then to suffer the final indignity of a violent torture and death through crucifixion.

Maybe the Jew would understand it as a balance. I look on it as a defeat, Jesus showed that He could defeat death and that there is a hope for an eternal life devoid of pain and tears.

The Parable of the Tenants
Mark 12:1-12
Matthew 21:33-46

This parable I like as an explanation of why Christ came. Basically because people blew it.

UU

I know this is a bit irrelevent and I've previously mentioned it but why does the Qur'an say that Jesus didn't die for all our sins. That he didn't even die on the cross because prophets can't die that way. And it was in fact Judas Iscariot who was crucified. It's a conflict between the two religions which confuses me. Also, it is said that the Qur'an is the actual words of Allah. That's a confusing concept.

BrianCalgary

UU wrote:

I know this is a bit irrelevent and I've previously mentioned it but why does the Qur'an say that Jesus didn't die for all our sins. That he didn't even die on the cross because prophets can't die that way. And it was in fact Judas Iscariot who was crucified. It's a conflict between the two religions which confuses me. Also, it is said that the Qur'an is the actual words of Allah. That's a confusing concept.

Actually not too confusing. Islam is a man made religion. (Any members of Islam see this, it is a Christianity board after all). Islam has made a god to be what they want. The support historically for the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is overwhelming. Hence the Qu'ran can not be the truth as it gets this historical fact wrong. Islam wishes to make Mohammed greater than Christ, well Christ is God and no man can be greater than He.

BrianCalgary

BrianCalgary wrote:

Islam is a man made religion.

Eh, so's Christianity. And all the rest of them...

robindch

> t's a conflict between the two religions which confuses me. Also, it is said
> that the Qur'an is the actual words of Allah. That's a confusing concept.

Erm, it's not too confusing at all if you suppose that either, or both, of the books are acutally not literally true in every possible interpretation of the texts.

There are reasons -- other than a simple desire for honesty and accuracy -- for which people write books that cast a gentle, wise and selfless light upon themselves and their cause

mountainyman

UU wrote:

I know this is a bit irrelevent and I've previously mentioned it but why does the Qur'an say that Jesus didn't die for all our sins.

They don't think he was God. But that he was a human to whom God spoke.
If he wasn't God then there is no reason to believe that his life was in some real sense redemptive.

UU wrote:

IThat he didn't even die on the cross because prophets can't die that way. And it was in fact Judas Iscariot who was crucified.

Perhaps at the time that Muhammad lived people were aware of just how humiliating a death crucifixion was. The idea of a prophet dying like that was disjunctive. Maybe Muhammad didn't want anyone getting ideas about how Prophets should die.
I didn't know that Judas is believed by Muslims to have been crucified. I thought they belive that Jesus had a twin.

UU wrote:

It's a conflict between the two religions which confuses me.

What is confusing about it. The Muslims are in error.

UU wrote:

Also, it is said that the Qur'an is the actual words of Allah. That's a confusing concept.

God is said to have dictated the Quran to Muhammad. Muhammad remembered God's words. They also believ that the Quran has a permanant existence in heaven or at least beyond the material. Something like a platonic form.

MM

mountainyman

Perhaps Jesus simply chose to make his death the mechanism for our redemption. That's what he decided to do. He could have done something else but chose to die on the cross.

It's a tough one.

MM

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

I look on it as a defeat, Jesus showed that He could defeat death and that there is a hope for an eternal life devoid of pain and tears.

Yes but did he know he would or could defeat death? If he did then that isn't a sacrafice.

This is what I don't get. On the one had you have the idea that Jesus sacraficed himself for our sins. Thats fine, but it implies that something was actually lost, that Jesus lost his life.

On the other had you have the idea that Jesus died so he could be resurrected to show the power of God and of faith in God. If that is the case what was the sacrafice? He didn't lose anything, he was fine in a few days.

The two ideas of why Jesus died don't really match up.

Imagine that instead of dying Jesus gave €2 euro to charity (stick with me here). Ok, that is a sacrafice, Jesus has lost something, his €2 euro, but it has been lost in a good cause.

But now imagine that Jesus is giving his €2 euro to the bank. He gets interest in that money, and says "look my people, you just have to give €2 away to the bank and you will get so much more back." That is a example for others to follow, but it isn't a sacrafice. Jesus still has his money, its just in the bank increasing in value.

What you guys are kinda saying is that Jesus gave his money to charity (a sacrafice) but he got back the money as if he had given it to the bank to show others (an example).

Jesus lost his life (the sacrafice) but got it straight back again (the example). The two theories can't work together.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

The support historically for the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is overwhelming

I wish people would stop claiming this.

There is very little (if any) indepedent historical support for the crucifixion of Jesus. The only "overwhelming support" comes from the early Christian church itself. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but there is certainly not overwhelming support it did, or any real reason to believe the Quar'an's version is less historically accurate then the Bibles

mountainyman

Wicknight wrote:

...the Quar'an's version is less historically accurate then the Bibles

That's nonsense; the Quran was written 500 years after the new testament a thousand miles away.

I mean come on.

MM

mountainyman

The crucifixion has the following advantages over giving 2 euro.

More memorable.
Humiliating, God humbles himself (or is humbled)
Shows his humanity and frailty.

In a sense I agree. Logically salvation can't be dependent on Christ's death and resurrection. God offers salvation to all who want it.

God could equally have:

For us and for our salvation come down from heaven, worked as a carpenter, taught people about religion, convinced a couple of people in the Jewish establishment of his divinity, been shielded by them, kept working as a carpenter and teaching people about religion, lived to be 103 and died surrounded by his nieces and nephews.

Maybe it just didn't turn out that way.

MM

bmoferrall

Maybe the following (true) story can shed some light on the matter (taken from a magazine):

A Jew’s Search for Blood

In the spring of 1898, I was holding some gospel meetings in San Francisco, and several times addressed the Jews attending a “Mission to Israel.” On one occasion, having concluded my discourse, the meeting was thrown open for discussion with any who desired to ask questions or state difficulties, as also for any who had been brought to Christ to relate their conversions. The experience of one old Jew interested me greatly, and, as nearly as I can, I give my remarks in his own words:

“This is Passover week among you, my Jewish brethren, and as I sat here, I was thinking how you will be observing it. You will have put away all leaven from your houses, you will eat the motsah (unleavened wafers) and the roasted lamb. You will attend the synagogue services, and carry out the ritual and directions of the Talmud; but you forget, my brethren, that you have everything but that which Jehovah required first of all. He did not say, 'When I see the leaven put away, or when I see you eat the motsah or go to the synagogue;' but His word was, 'When I see the blood I will pass over you.' Ah, my brethren, you can substitute nothing for this. You must have blood, blood, BLOOD!" As he reiterated this word with ever-increasing emphasis, his black eyes flashed warningly.

After a moment's pause, the old man went on. "I was born in Palestine more than seventy years ago. As a child I was taught to read the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets. I early attended the synagogue and learned Hebrew from the rabbis. At first I believed what I was told, that ours was the true and only religion, but as I grew older and studied the Law more intently, I was struck by the place the blood had in all the ceremonies there, and equally struck by its utter absence in the ritual to which I was brought up.

"Again and again I read Exodus 12 and Leviticus 16 and 17, and those chapters made me tremble as I thought of the great Day of Atonement and the place the blood had there. Day and night one verse would ring in my ears. 'It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul!' I knew I had broken the law. I needed atonement. Year after year, on that day, I beat my breast as I confessed my need of it; but it was to be made by blood, and there was no blood!

"In my distress, at last, I opened my heart to a learned and venerable rabbi. He told me that God was angry with His people. Jerusalem was in the hands of the Gentiles, the temple was destroyed, and a Muslim mosque was in its place. The only spot on earth where we dare shed the blood of sacrifice, according to Deuteronomy 12, was des-ecrated, and our nation scattered. That was why there was no blood. God had Himself closed the way to carry out the solemn service of the great Day of Atonement. Now, we must turn to the Talmud, and rest on its instruction, and trust in the mercy of God and the merits of the fathers.

"I tried to be satisfied, but could not. Something seemed to say that the law was unaltered, even though our temple was destroyed. Nothing else but blood could atone for the soul. We dared not shed blood for atonement else-where than in the place the Lord had chosen. Then, were we left without an atonement at all?

"This thought filled me with horror. In my distress I consulted many other rabbis. I had but one question—Where can I find the blood of atonement?
"I was over thirty years of age when I left Palestine and came to Constantinople [Istanbul], with my still unan-swered question, and my soul troubled about my sins.

"One night I was walking down one of the narrow streets of that city, when I saw a sign telling of a meeting for Jews. Curiosity led me to go in. Just as I took a seat I heard a man say, 'The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin.' I listened breathlessly as the speaker told how God had declared that 'without shedding of blood is no remission;' but that He had given His only Son, the Lamb of God, to die, and all who trusted in His blood were forgiven all their iniquities. This was the Mes-siah of Isaiah 53: this was the Sufferer of Psalm 22.

"Ah, my brethren, I had found the blood of atonement at last. I trusted it, and now I love to read the New Testa-ment and see how the shadows of the law are fulfilled in Jesus. His blood has been shed for sinners, has satisfied God, and is the only means of salvation for all."

mountainyman

bmoferrall wrote:

[God] did not say, 'When I see the leaven put away, or when I see you eat the motsah or go to the synagogue;' but His word was, 'When I see the blood I will pass over you.' Ah, my brethren, you can substitute nothing for this. You must have blood, blood, BLOOD!" ...

...The blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin.' I listened breathlessly as the speaker told how God had declared that 'without shedding of blood is no remission;' but that He had given His only Son, the Lamb of God, to die, and all who trusted in His blood were forgiven all their iniquities.

What does remission mean in this context? We don't do a deal with God. I don't say to God 'I will slaughter a lamb and you let me off my sins'. Salvation is a gift freely given by God to all who accept it.

Also isn't the Old Testament superseded by the new. (I know that this is contrary to Catholic doctrine which says that Judaism is a valid way for Jews to approach God)

MM

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

I wish people would stop claiming this.

There is very little (if any) indepedent historical support for the crucifixion of Jesus. The only "overwhelming support" comes from the early Christian church itself. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but there is certainly not overwhelming support it did, or any real reason to believe the Quar'an's version is less historically accurate then the Bibles

Josephus: 'When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had him condemned to be crucified,'

Tacitus: 'Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty (crucifixion) during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate,'


Just a quick couple of references by those non-Christians who opposed Christianity.

Medina

Wicknight wrote:

Well again that is a bit of an unfounded argument. Lots of "foot soldiers" had decided to sacrafice themselves when they have not been ordered too. The classic example is the soldier who threw himself on a live grenade to protect his commrades.

A soldier who sacrifices his human life to protect physical persons, or environments is certainly a person to be applauded. However no humans apart from Jesus have sacrificed themselves to save the souls others. That is why you cannot equal Jesus to 'heroes' or martyrs. Martyrs did not have the capability of saving the souls of other human beings - because all souls are responsible for themselves. Martyrs possibly saved their own souls (with God's Mercy as no soul is guaranteed saving) and in the process may also have aided other people to have their belief.

Jesus' sacrifice was not only of His body. When people refer to Jesus as the Son of God, people confuse this with the fact that Jesus's spirit was the spirit of God enclosed in a human's body. But as the body was a physical son - the son of Mary- and the soul of that body was God's essence..people have morphed the whole idea into the 'Son of God'. This is how people confuse the Trinity-thinking 'How can three be one?' Three what exactly? We do not know God's shape , form or size. God's sacrifice was also His sacrificing His divinity..for the period of Jesus' life , God allowed Himself to walk among men..as a poor man..ridiculed, doubted, and eventually tortured and murdered. This was the entire sacrifice of God- the God who allowed some of His essence to reside within Jesus...what a humiliation for Him.

God had sent numerous prophets before Jesus, and still the people turned away. If God wanted us to believe in Him without choice, He never would have created us, that is what Angels are..beings who believe without choice. God wants us to believe of our own free will..that is our challenge here on earth. Why would He have changed His perfect mind and suddenly decided to move the clouds in the sky to form Morning or any other phenomena that nobody could have refuted?

Instead He disguised Himself as one of us, to try and persuade us to return to God. He allowed the body to be tortured and murdered, and by doing so He Himself went through death, and yet people say 'How could God die?'. Well He didn't, the body died. But that was how He conquered death as such (God does not need to conquer what He Himself created), He simply went through the process Himself.

God decided to allow Life after death from this time on, why not before is a mystery for us but possibly because now He had actually deigned to visit us Himself and this was our last and ultimate chance, whereas before people had messengers, God himself had come through the form of Jesus to us and if anyone who would believe in this and believe in the sacrifice He made, then He would grant them Life.

bmoferrall

What does remission mean in this context?

I guess remission is used in the sense of the removal of a diseases's symptoms, i.e. we are cleansed/absolved from the stain of sin by a blood sacrifice.

We don't do a deal with God. I don't say to God 'I will slaughter a lamb and you let me off my sins'.

That's essentially how it was in OT times, except that the sacrificial ceremony had to be performed (anually) by the high priest in the temple. The book of Hebrews argues forcefully that Christ's once-and-for-all sacrifice on the cross has made the priesthood redundant.

Salvation is a gift freely given by God to all who accept it. Also isn't the Old Testament superseded by the new. (I know that this is contrary to Catholic doctrine which says that Judaism is a valid way for Jews to approach God)

Yeah, thankfully we're not expected to fulfil the letter of the law anymore. Jesus fulfilled the law perfectly, removing that impossible burden from us. Paul teaches that, when you are subject to the law, failure in one aspect of the law means failure overall. Furthermore, he (and Hebrews) argues that we are all (BC and AD) saved by Faith, with Christ's sacrifice acting retrospectively for those in OT times.

(I would provide quotes, only my memory is shockingly poor )

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but did he know he would or could defeat death? If he did then that isn't a sacrafice..

So lets take a look at what He did sacrifice.

Wicknight wrote:

This is what I don't get. On the one had you have the idea that Jesus sacraficed himself for our sins. Thats fine, but it implies that something was actually lost, that Jesus lost his life.

On the other had you have the idea that Jesus died so he could be resurrected to show the power of God and of faith in God. If that is the case what was the sacrafice? He didn't lose anything, he was fine in a few days.

The two ideas of why Jesus died don't really match up.

Imagine that instead of dying Jesus gave €2 euro to charity (stick with me here). Ok, that is a sacrafice, Jesus has lost something, his €2 euro, but it has been lost in a good cause.

But now imagine that Jesus is giving his €2 euro to the bank. He gets interest in that money, and says "look my people, you just have to give €2 away to the bank and you will get so much more back." That is a example for others to follow, but it isn't a sacrafice. Jesus still has his money, its just in the bank increasing in value.

What you guys are kinda saying is that Jesus gave his money to charity (a sacrafice) but he got back the money as if he had given it to the bank to show others (an example).

Jesus lost his life (the sacrafice) but got it straight back again (the example). The two theories can't work together.

What did Jesus lose or give-up that could be construed as a sacrifice?

He gave up His place in Heaven to put on the clothing of man. He allowed Himself to go hungry and to be tempted as a human. He did these things to show we humans that temptation could be defeated.

He allowed Himself to be tortured and humiliated. Crucifixion was the ultimate method of painful death, as well as being humiliating through being stripped and hung on the cross in public.

But where I think the sacrifice really happened is when Jesus took the punishment for all our sin. As the article states above 'where is the blood?' At the point when Jesus says 'why have you forsaken me?' He had all the sin of the world, past, present, and future laid upon Him.

I see what you are saying about your 2 Euro (my keyboard doesn't have the symbol). Jesus did more. Let's say then you borrow $2 from the bank and get into a position that you can't afford to pay it back, the bank is coming at you to foreclose, you are feeling destitute, your wife is going to leave, with the kids and go home to Mom because you have failed in the area of finances. Then someone comes along and says 'let me pay that debt, and you are now free and clear'. That is the sacrifice. He took the whack for all of everyone sin so that you could be reconciled to God.

In the example you gave the person gives their $2 to a charity and goes without, we know the charity is going to help someone. What Jesus did is far more personal, He payed your debt, He paid my debt. He was tortured for you, and for me.

On a personal note, I saw the Passion of the Christ twice in a week. After the second time I came home and my wife said 'how'd it go?'. I could only say that i had just watched my best friend get tortured and killed twice in the last week and all I want to do is serve him for what He did for me.'

robindch

> Just a quick couple of references by those non-Christians who
> opposed Christianity.

Again, Brian, Tacitus does not say that Jesus walked and talked after he'd been executed, which is the whole point of the christian story. Roman authors, as I'm sure you are aware, reported many strange things in their writings. Do you not find it unusual that Tacitus, a sober and honest commentator, would fail to mention the only instance in human history of somebody being killed, then being seen walking around the place a short while later by "over 500" people?

Akrasia

BrianCalgary wrote:

Because a soldier does it under orders. He does not decide that he will go out and get himself killed for the cause without taking a few of th eenemy with him. Jesus lived His whole life for the purpose of being tortured and crucified in order that those who follow Him could have life.

Nobody ordered the july 7th bombers to kill themselves attacking london. They decided by themselves with no contact from any al qaeda leaders. Nobody ordered bobby sands to go on hunger strike.

And unless it's a consript army, people who sign up to fight a cause are usually prepared to die for that cause, They do not want to die, but they are often prepared to die if it is necessary for the cause. (jesus didn't want to die either, he was only following orders from his dad btw)

babyvaio

BrianCalgary wrote:

Actually not too confusing. Islam is a man made religion. (Any members of Islam see this, it is a Christianity board after all). Islam has made a god to be what they want. The support historically for the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth is overwhelming. Hence the Qu'ran can not be the truth as it gets this historical fact wrong. Islam wishes to make Mohammed greater than Christ, well Christ is God and no man can be greater than He.

Where did you get this from? I think it wouldn't be nice to say that Christianity is a man made religion, wouldn't it? I guess not. Can you back up what's you're saying? Hmmm...not nice indeed.

And now that somebody mentioned the Qur'an....

The Qur'an claims that is it the Word of Almighty God.
The Qur'an claims that Almighty God, the very same Lord of The Heavens and The Earth and Lord of Paradise and Hell, revelead also the Old and New Testament, to Moses and Jesus, and a Book to David (the Psalms) and a Book (the Qur'an) to Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him.
Now how many books in this world claim that???

The Qur'an also claims that the very same Lord of The Heavens and The Earth and everything that exists, Himself alone created this very universe with no help from others (none could have helped Him anyway, He in fact helps others and BTW He wasn't tired or exhausted after the creation of The Heavens and The Earth as some claim, tiredness is something known to animals and humans, etc.)
The Qur'an claims that Jesus was only a Prophet.
The Qur'an talks very highly of Jesus and his mother Mary.
The Qur'an says beautiful things about Jesus.
The Qur'an claims that Jesus never ever claimed he was a son of Almighty God or that was claimed he was God.
The Qur'an also claims the Jesus didn't die on the cross.
The Qur'an also claims that every soul carrie her sins.
etc.

The last sentence about what the Qur'an claims actually makes a lot of sense - why would somebody else carry my sins? Why?

Islam has made a god to be what they want
How exactly? The Qur'an is the Word of God, so what's in there, is not what people claimed first, but Almighty claimed for Himself and some people accepted it, those who did are called Muslims.

The Qur'an didn't get anything wrong. Who actually saw Jesus being crucified? Many? But yet, Almighty saved His Messenger by putting his appearance/form on somebody else. That might have been Judas. That's another topic.

And be open minded and think - how come God Almighty can feel pain? Pain is something He created, but not for Himself. It doesn't make sense that He can feel pain, not at all. And BTW, even if we thought that really happenede, God could have "get rid of feeling pain", right? He can do what He wants, agreed? So it wouldn't make sense to claim that He died, He cannot die.

Finally, if He really died, then He also lived at the same time (now you're saying God is three but one at the same time), so you got yourself a big contradiction there.

The logic would suggest that God cannot die. Therefore He didn't die on the cross. Therefore Jesus is not God Almighty.

It seems to me that some people say God is One when they need it and yet they say He is three, when they need it. It's hard to stick with one opinion obviously.

And think again, if God sacrificed Himself - which I don't believe in anyway - then doing anything evil is justifiable. You can always say well, I'm forgiven, I mean God sacrificed Himself for what I've done.

Now that sounds like a complete disorder and we know that a disorder does not come from Almighty God, but from people.

One last word - the fact that Jesus raised people from death does not prove he was God at all. The Qur'an claims that what Jesus did was purely by God's Command and Power, Jesus himself could do nothing.
I think even the Bible can back this up. Check it yourselves.

BTW, here's something for an honest and open minded comparison with the Bible:


Surah/Chapter 004 - An-Nisâ. Verse 157.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture ; they slew him not for certain,

Surah/Chapter 005 - Al-Mâ'idah. Verse 110.

English Translation (The Noble Qur'an)
When Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Remember My favor unto thee and unto thy mother; how I strengthened thee with the holy Spirit (angel Gabriel), so that thou spakest unto mankind in the cradle as in maturity; and how I taught thee the Scripture and Wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel; and how thou didst shape of clay as it were the likeness of a bird by My permission, and didst blow upon it and it was a bird by My permission, and thou didst heal him who was born blind and the leper by My permission; and how thou didst raise the dead, by My permission and how I restrained the Children of Israel from (harming) thee when thou camest unto them with clear proofs, and those of them who disbelieved exclaimed: This is naught else than mere magic;