What was actually achieved by Jesus death?

Leroy42

My understanding is that Jesus died to take away the sins of the world.

So what sins did he take on? Is it original sin or all sins? If original sin then surely that means that the debt created by Adam & Eve has been paid and should we not now be in paradise?

If it is not original sin, then what sins is it? It can’t be all sins as then we are free to do whatever we want and have already, though his death, been forgiven so heaven awaits.

gillad

My view on his death is it had nothing to do with sin.
He died to prove that there is life after death.He did this by coming back from the dead and talking to different people in different places.
This defies all logic,how did he do this?....He did it by getting in touch with his spirit while alive as a human and keeping that connection very strong at death +no fear of death.
We cant all resurrect like him but we can get in touch with our spirit while living.
So,nothing to do with sin or debt .All to do with proof of the immortal spirit.

Leroy42

Ah Ok, so my understanding is wrong. I thought I was taught that by dying he took on the sins of the world and that his resurrection defeated death and showed that through him you can get eternal life (in heaven rather than the mortal version).

I get the resurrection bit, and I understand that that is the main tenet of christianity but the whole cruxifiction thing plays such a large part in the teaching (for example Jesus on the cross in every church) that I was sure that it actually played some part in our relationship with God.

And some parts of the bible seem to suggest that he did take away our sins;

1 John 4:9-10
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1 John 2:1-2
1 My little children, these things write I to you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

So it would appear, IMO, that Jesus took on the sins on behalf of mankind so that through his resurrection and defeat of death we can get eternal life through him, believing in Him and living in accordance with Him. Without Jesus death and taking on our sins we could not enter the kingdom of heaven as we still had sin.

Utdfan20titles

Did he die? Did he ever exist? Bigger questions than the thread title if you ask me

gillad

Utdfan20titles wrote: »

Did he die? Did he ever exist? Bigger questions than the thread title if you ask me

Did he die?....If he didnt die on the cross then it was still a miracle that he survived from his wounds, hands and feet nail to a cross for hours and also the spear in the side to finish him off.Any one of these wounds would have been enough to kill him back then with no antibiotics.

Did he ever exist?...there is a lot wrote about him in different cultures which is not recognised by the church and the church did pick and choose what it wanted us to know about him.He was know as jesus, yeshua and isha
here is an interesting account of him as isha on his travels in india during his missing yearshttp://www.adishakti.org/forum/history_of_isha_messiah_jesus_the_christ_12-13-2006.htm

gillad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Ah Ok, so my understanding is wrong. I thought I was taught that by dying he took on the sins of the world and that his resurrection defeated death and showed that through him you can get eternal life (in heaven rather than the mortal version).

I get the resurrection bit, and I understand that that is the main tenet of christianity but the whole cruxifiction thing plays such a large part in the teaching (for example Jesus on the cross in every church) that I was sure that it actually played some part in our relationship with God.

And some parts of the bible seem to suggest that he did take away our sins;

1 John 4:9-10
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

1 John 2:1-2
1 My little children, these things write I to you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

So it would appear, IMO, that Jesus took on the sins on behalf of mankind so that through his resurrection and defeat of death we can get eternal life through him, believing in Him and living in accordance with Him. Without Jesus death and taking on our sins we could not enter the kingdom of heaven as we still had sin.

There are lots of quotes about jesus dying for our sins from different people but did jesus himself say anything about this?

Leroy42

gillad wrote: »

There are lots of quotes about jesus dying for our sins from different people but did jesus himself say anything about this?

I am not aware of it directly, only know that it is what I think I have been taught (I use this phrase as I fully accept that I may be wrong).

Certainly it would appear that the 'myth' of him taking away the sins of the world has been allowed to be believed and why is the cruxifiction 'celebrated' (I use the word in the church sense) if it really was nothing more than a step in the way to the resurrection.

I also think that if it is in the bible that, like many other things within the bible that are not directly said by Jesus, we are expected to take them as 'gospel' (excuse the pun!). For example did Jesus ever say his mother was a virgin? He never actually said he was the son of God either!

uck51js9zml2yt

Surely we had this conversation only a few weeks ago!
What answers do you feel this thread will give that the other one didn't?

Leroy42

Karla Tall Theft wrote: »

Surely we had this conversation only a few weeks ago!
What answers do you feel this thread will give that the other one didn't?

Sorry, which thread? I did a search but didn't anything. I did raise it on another thread but was told to raise a separate thread.

Giacomo McGubbin

“all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23)
“The wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23). - All throughout the old testament the consequences of human sin are demonstrated again and again - Permanent death, physical and spiritual.
Satan presumed he had managed to obtain permanent physical and spiritual death for Mankind by getting people to trust his version of sin instead of God.
After all the penalty must be paid. God is perfectly merciful, but also perfectly just.
The totally innocent life Christ gave was both human and devine, he is the alpha and the omega, the source of all life, and greater than sum total of all human life.
Now if we reject and make amends for our own sins in our life, we can still obtain obtain eternal life.
But the real triumph was not the death, but the resurrection, and the defeat of spiritual death for humankind forever.

gillad

"The wages of sin is death".....Death comes anyway regardless of whether one has sinned or not and it does not go after those who have sinned more so that quote is nonsense.

The old testament is before jesus and a lot of nonsense in that too.(eye for an eye/tooth for a tooth)not what jesus woukd have said.
there is too much focus on sin and not enough focus on the amazing man who rose from the dead to proove that we are eternal spirits

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

“
But the real triumph was not the death, but the resurrection, and the defeat of spiritual death for humankind forever.

This is what is most important and often forgotten about.

Leroy42

So his death achieved nothing other than laying the path for the resurrection?

Why are we then told that God so loves us that he gave his only son when really he didn't as death was normal and resurrection was always the end game so his 'death' wasn't such a loss

Giacomo McGubbin

gillad wrote: »

"The wages of sin is death".....Death comes anyway regardless of whether one has sinned or not and it does not go after those who have sinned more so that quote is nonsense.

There was no death until man introduced sin to the world.

gillad wrote: »

"The wages of sin is death".....Death comes
The old testament is before jesus and a lot of nonsense in that too.(eye for an eye/tooth for a tooth)not what jesus woukd have said.

gillad wrote: »

there is too much focus on sin and not enough focus on the amazing man who rose from the dead to proove that we are eternal spirits

Agreed, there certainly was, but the OP specifically asked about sin.
Sin and it's effects still exist, and will still slowly destroy anyone.

gillad wrote: »

This is what is most important and often forgotten about.

I Absolutely agree, in the current social climate, it must be either be forgotten about, or it must never be mentioned examined / emphasised. It must be downplayed / dismissed, or at least drowned out with noise.

Giacomo McGubbin

Leroy42 wrote: »

So his death achieved nothing other than laying the path for the resurrection?

Who is this addressed to, I don't recall anyone on the thread saying this ? Can you provide a proper direct quote ?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why are we then told that God so loves us that he gave his only son when really he didn't as death was normal and resurrection was always the end game so his 'death' wasn't such a loss

I'm not sure if you read what I posted or not, but the penalty for sin is eternal death for humankind, but Christ both paid that penalty for us and canceled that effect. Also you are forgetting the agony in the garden, where he felt the entire spiritual effects of all sin past present and future. Sins he dd not commit but then bore. His subsequent execution wasn't normal. It isn't normal for the eternal divine being and source of everything to be tortured and executed for telling the truth, to bear the spirtual agnony and knowledge of all sin, to pay the price for it all, and to go through death and live. Nor did he have to do any of that for us. Other than love for man why would he bother ? As for the "end game", it's not a "game", man choose to introduce sin and it's eternal consequences, and although we're only on this earth for a short time, collectively we're far from the end of "the game".

gillad

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

There was no death until man introduced sin to the world.
.

I dont agree with this.Death is part of the human journey.The soul/spirit incarnates as a human to experience physicality,touch,sight,sound,excitement,love.etc....One of the most important parts of existence here on earth is FREEWILL to choose these experiences.
We all know what happens when freewill is taken from us,we become less than what we are so we have freewill and we live our life with it.
Freewill to sin is also a choice and many choose it and its not wrong,its just moving away from our loving spirit.Sin prooves that we have freewill and that god loves and trusts us to find our own way here.
Dont fear sin as "fear"is a type of sin....if you fear something then you dont have trust in your spirit and god.
Jesus did not fear his death as he knew his spirit does not die but just evolves.He didnt die for sin or sinners.He died and resurrected to show that we are much more than just humans.He was human and not a god.He just had a very strong connection to god which we all can achieve if we choose love( its not essential to choose love,but life is easier if you do):)

gillad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why are we then told that God so loves us that he gave his only son when really he didn't as death was normal and resurrection was always the end game so his 'death' wasn't such a loss

We are told lots of things and its important to remember that the people telling you these things are men and women,humans just like you.

trust your own feelings about things as your feelings are your connection to your spirit and god and your own truth.There is no singular truth just your own.

Giacomo McGubbin

gillad wrote: »

I don't agree with this.Death is part of the human journey.The soul/spirit incarnates as a human to experience physicality,touch,sight,sound,excitement,love.etc....One of the most important parts of existence here on earth is FREEWILL to choose these experiences.
We all know what happens when freewill is taken from us,we become less than what we are so we have freewill and we live our life with it.
Freewill to sin is also a choice and many choose it and its not wrong,its just moving away from our loving spirit.Sin prooves that we have freewill and that god loves and trusts us to find our own way here.
Dont fear sin as "fear"is a type of sin....if you fear something then you dont have trust in your spirit and god.
Jesus did not fear his death as he knew his spirit does not die but just evolves.He didnt die for sin or sinners.He died and resurrected to show that we are much more than just humans.He was human and not a god.He just had a very strong connection to god which we all can achieve if we choose love( its not essential to choose love,but life is easier if you do):)

Can I ask you to clarify for posters what religion / denomination you are ?

You don't have to agree with Christianity, but that's not Christianity you are talking about.
Scripture and Christianity is clear that man introduced sin and therefore death and destruction and imperfection to the world, and that was his God given freewill choice to do so, but it's not God's plan. Of course, you're still free to choose sin and it's effects and consequences, and believe otherwise - that's all part of God given freewill.

gillad

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Can I ask you to clarify for posters what religion / denomination you are ?

You don't have to agree with Christianity, but that's not Christianity you are talking about.
Scripture and Christianity is clear that man introduced sin and therefore death and destruction and imperfection to the world, and that was his God given freewill choice to do so, but it's not God's plan. Of course, you're still free to choose sin and it's effects and consequences, and believe otherwise - that's all part of God given freewill.

I dont have a specific religion.I was brought up as an irish catholic but i take pieces from different religions as they all point to the same thing.God and love.I like some of the buddhist ideas and i have great respect for jesus but im not a fan of the old testament as there is a lot of talk about war and destruction and hell,all very negative stuff for the soul.I like to live a positive and loving life and make my own decisions about what we really are which is an extension of god/love.
I feel gods love every minute of the day.its the first thing i am aware of each morning and the last thing at night.It is very powerful/blissfull and hard to live with at times because of the power of this love.I found this through quiet and meditation,living a peacefull life.

I believe in the teachings of jesus so am i a christian?..It doesnt matter as i feel the love jesus talked about and thats all i need these days and i dont need to label myself as this religion or that religion.

Death was around long before humans came to earth.

gillad

you spoke of gods plan.if god has a plan then freewill does not exist.
without freewill we are nothing

Giacomo McGubbin

gillad wrote: »

i have great respect for jesus but im not a fan of the old testament as there is a lot of talk about war and destruction and hell,all very negative stuff for the soul.I like to live a positive and loving life and make my own decisions about what we really are which is an extension of god/love.

The very reason that the old testament is important, is because Christ endorsed its scriptural and spiritual authenticity and quoted it regularly. Without it, everything Christ does would be out of context and meaningless. The old testament is often portrayed today as you say, but it's purpose is to make clear and document the inevitable effects of and consequences of sin being chosen over and over by man instead of good. Sin is of course negative stuff for the soul, that's the whole point the old testament is trying convey and warn about. Yet the message still doesn't seem to have got through. Sin destroys life, both physical and spiritual, and living as Christ teaches brings life.

Giacomo McGubbin

gillad wrote: »

you spoke of gods plan.if god has a plan then freewill does not exist.
without freewill we are nothing

That's a non sequitur. God gave us free will.

A doctor has a plan for healthy life, but I'm of course free to choose otherwise despite the advice.

gillad

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

The very reason that the old testament is important, is because Christ endorsed its scriptural and spiritual authenticity and quoted it regularly. Without it, everything Christ does would be out of context and meaningless. The old testament is often portrayed today as you say, but it's purpose is to make clear and document the inevitable effects of and consequences of sin being chosen over and over by man instead of good. Sin is of course negative stuff for the soul, that's the whole point the old testament is trying convey and warn about. Yet the message still doesn't seem to have got through. Sin destroys life, both physical and spiritual, and living as Christ teaches brings life.

Yes.I understand now.Jesus spoke about the old testament because it was engrained in society and to ignore it would have been a bad idea.
We dont need to be reminded of the old testament and its consequences anymore beacuse we can see the consequences of sin everyday in our world.
Jesus came to change things and shake us up and frorget the old ways.
so my way is to forget about our past and focus on the now.
forget about fear and damnation and focus on love.
What we focus on will come to be.

gillad

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

That's a non sequitur. God gave us free will.

A doctor has a plan for healthy life, but I'm of course free to choose otherwise despite the advice.

A doctor might have a plan for a healthy life but what if his plan involves eating peanuts.I may be allergic to peanuts and may not be a healthy plan for me.
there is only your own plan and that involves your own freewill to choose light or dark.there is no wrong or right just choice,experience and a return to spirit and god at death.

Giacomo McGubbin

gillad wrote: »

Yes.I understand now.Jesus spoke about the old testament because it was engrained in society and to ignore it would have been a bad idea.
We dont need to be reminded of the old testament and its consequences anymore beacuse we can see the consequences of sin everyday in our world.
Jesus came to change things and shake us up and frorget the old ways.
so my way is to forget about our past and focus on the now.
forget about fear and damnation and focus on love.
What we focus on will come to be.

I would broadly agree, once you understand the consequences and effects of sin and how personally harmful it is to yourselves and others in the long term, both physically and spiritually, you can concentrate on Christ and love. To fully understand the way, you have to contemplate everything he taught, did, and said, not just the selected bits we find easy to fit in with what we would prefer.

looksee

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Can I ask you to clarify for posters what religion / denomination you are ?

You don't have to agree with Christianity, but that's not Christianity you are talking about.
Scripture and Christianity is clear that man introduced sin and therefore death and destruction and imperfection to the world, and that was his God given freewill choice to do so, but it's not God's plan. Of course, you're still free to choose sin and it's effects and consequences, and believe otherwise - that's all part of God given freewill.

Does this mean that man before 'the fall' was immortal? If you take the creation story literally, this was possible as there were only two humans and the business with the apple was easily within their lifetimes, as the creation took only 7 days and Adam and Eve were produced as adults shortly after. They then went on to have two boys and started the human race. Hmmm.

If the creation story was an allegory and there were in fact other people around who had arrived by being born to other people, at what stage did people cease being immortal?

kumate_champ07

what kind of father would let that happen to his 'only son'? he basically sacrificed him. did God not feel bad about that? but God was Jesus aswell, so he did it to himself? and god asked himself why he had forsaken himself while on the cross?

Leroy42

I haven't actually got any reason for the cruxifiction, apart from it was needed for Jesus to die to be resurrected and therefore defeat death. But did he not do that by raising Lazuras from death? Why not simply bring back a load of dead babies from the time to show that he was God and through him death was no longer the end?

And if the resurrection was the 'big reveal' then why not actually reveal it? Why did Jesus only appear to those that already believed? Why not appear to everyone, tear down he temple and show the true God?

uck51js9zml2yt

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

what kind of father would let that happen to his 'only son'? he basically sacrificed him. did God not feel bad about that? but God was Jesus aswell, so he did it to himself? and god asked himself why he had forsaken himself while on the cross?

A Father who knew the only way to restore mankind to fellowship with Himself was for Jesus to die, the perfect sacrifice for sin.
But He also knew the end of the story. Death defeated, a way made open for mankind, the power of sin dealt with in those who believe, Jesus resurrected and ascended.

Leroy42

Karla Tall Theft wrote: »

A Father who knew the only way to restore mankind to fellowship with Himself was for Jesus to die, the perfect sacrifice for sin.
But He also knew the end of the story. Death defeated, a way made open for mankind, the power of sin dealt with in those who believe, Jesus resurrected and ascended.

But what sin?

gillad

Leroy42 wrote: »

I haven't actually got any reason for the cruxifiction, apart from it was needed for Jesus to die to be resurrected and therefore defeat death. But did he not do that by raising Lazuras from death? Why not simply bring back a load of dead babies from the time to show that he was God and through him death was no longer the end?

And if the resurrection was the 'big reveal' then why not actually reveal it? Why did Jesus only appear to those that already believed? Why not appear to everyone, tear down he temple and show the true God?

Bringing Lazurus back from the dead was a remarkable feat but only those who knew lazurus would have been amazed,others may have shrugged it off as maybe he wasnt dead at all...The Crucifixion was a big event seen by many so the perfect stage to perform a big reveal.
He came back from the dead!....appeared to his friends and to a crowd of 500 People.....what more should he have done?...tearing down temples is not loving.bringing back dead babies?not sure about the effects of that.
He was not god,he was a son of god just like you,a human with a great connection to god.

Leroy42

gillad wrote: »

Bringing Lazurus back from the dead was a remarkable feat but only those who knew lazurus would have been amazed,others may have shrugged it off as maybe he wasnt dead at all...The Crucifixion was a big event seen by many so the perfect stage to perform a big reveal.
He came back from the dead!....appeared to his friends and to a crowd of 500 People.....what more should he have done?...tearing down temples is not loving.bringing back dead babies?not sure about the effects of that.
He was not god,he was a son of god just like you,a human with a great connection to god.

So bringing Lazuras back could be classed as open to debate/staged but Jesus, with only his followers to witness, couldn't?
Many, many people were cruxified, nothing special about it (well in the times), doesn't make Jesus any different than many other traitors to Rome or heretics. So seeing some guy get cruxified does not itself give any credence to the resurrection, I wonder how many of the crowd at any of these events would have checked on the status of those cruxified later on?
He didn't appear to friends (well they were friends I suppose) but to his devout followers. Can't exactly take their word for it really. And 500 people sounds a lot but it is claimed he is the son of God but he was what, too busy to appear to anyone else? Was he in a rush to get somewhere. Mary, apparently, has been visiting Medjugorje for years but Jesus could only handle a few very select audiences for the very thing he was due to deliver to change the very nature of the world?
He was not God? Have you never heard of the Trinity. They are one in the same. Jesus knew of his upcoming resurrection, so why would he even fear death, he would welcome it.

Giacomo McGubbin

gillad wrote: »

A doctor might have a plan for a healthy life but what if his plan involves eating peanuts.I may be allergic to peanuts and may not be a healthy plan for me.
there is only your own plan and that involves your own freewill to choose light or dark.there is no wrong or right just choice,experience and a return to spirit and god at death.

"Love one another" is not bad for you. As for saying there is no right or wrong, I disagree, clearly lots of things are right or wrong from helping others to killing them.

Giacomo McGubbin

looksee wrote: »

Does this mean that man before 'the fall' was immortal? If you take the creation story literally, this was possible as there were only two humans and the business with the apple was easily within their lifetimes, as the creation took only 7 days and Adam and Eve were produced as adults shortly after. They then went on to have two boys and started the human race. Hmmm.

If the creation story was an allegory and there were in fact other people around who had arrived by being born to other people, at what stage did people cease being immortal?

Genesis primarily refers to spiritual death. Traditional Christianity and Judaism understanding of Genesis is neither completely literal nor completely allegory. Scripture is primarily concerned with spirituality not physicality. It's more nuanced than that.

From the CCC

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents (CCC 390).

gillad

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

clearly lots of things are right or wrong from helping others to killing them.

We have always disagreed over what is wrong and right and this causes conflict in the world.
We go to war because of our belief in what is right but the people that we go to war with are also fighting for what they believe is right.....Both sides are right,both sides are wrong which throws the concept of wrong or right into chaos and gives it no meaning.
we can choose love or choose hate and from this choice we learn and grow.
To choose love does give a happier peaceful life which is what most of us desire and its easy when you get going and gets easier.

The ten commandments should be renamed "Ten good choices for a happier life" we dont like to be commanded and its because of our rebellious nature as humans... we like to disobey orders from time to time.It can be exciting!

uck51js9zml2yt

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what sin?

All sin. Past , present and future.

Leroy42

Karla Tall Theft wrote: »

All sin. Past , present and future.

So what exactly are we repenting for?

Why do babies need baptism, Jesus got rid of sin so there cannot be 'original' sin.

God has already forgiven us for our sins so our place in heaven is secure. It cannot be dependent on believing in Jesus, since those that died before Jesus could not held accountable for not believing. And if they get a pass, then it seems logical to allow a pass for all those who don't hear of Jesus and all those that are taught other religions.

So now we are done to God only ruling out a very small, based on very selective criteria, % of people to whom heaven is even a non possibility.

Atomicjuicer0

I reckon it was to "show us the way" and demonstrate that death can be overcome.

I personally regret that it happened the way it did though but I'm not surprised.

It's too typical a human response to attack what is different from us.

Nick Park

Leroy42 wrote: »

So what exactly are we repenting for?

The word 'repentance' in the New Testament means to make a 180 degree turnaround and head in a different direction. So, upon receiving forgiveness for our sins, we avail of the power of God not to commit them anymore.

The point of salvation and forgiveness is not that we keep on committing our sins happy in the knowledge that we won't be called to account. The point is that Christ can set us free from both the guilt and the power of sin.

Why do babies need baptism, Jesus got rid of sin so there cannot be 'original' sin.

I'm not a Roman Catholic, so I can't answer for that denomination. But as far as I understand the Bible there is no need whatsoever for babies to be baptised.

God has already forgiven us for our sins so our place in heaven is secure. It cannot be dependent on believing in Jesus, since those that died before Jesus could not held accountable for not believing. And if they get a pass, then it seems logical to allow a pass for all those who don't hear of Jesus and all those that are taught other religions.

No, there's a gap in your reasoning here. The New Testament tells us that those who lived before Christ (such as Abraham) did believe in (or more properly 'put their faith in') Jesus. Throughout the Old Testament there were numerous promises from God, and an entire sacrificial system that foreshadowed the coming of Jesus as the one perfect sacrifice. People who lived and died before the coming of Jesus nevertheless believed these promises and it was reckoned to them as righteousness (Galatians 3:5-7).

The Bible doesn't actually tell us what happens to those who don't get to hear of Jesus. It is essentially a practical book to tell us how we can know God, not to satisfy every philosophical or theological question we might have. The important thing is that you and I have both heard about Jesus, and the Bible tells us how we can act upon that knowledge by accepting the free gift of salvation that is made possible through His sacrificial death.

Leroy42

Nick Park wrote: »

The word 'repentance' in the New Testament means to make a 180 degree turnaround and head in a different direction. So, upon receiving forgiveness for our sins, we avail of the power of God not to commit them anymore.

The point of salvation and forgiveness is not that we keep on committing our sins happy in the knowledge that we won't be called to account. The point is that Christ can set us free from both the guilt and the power of sin.

But God has already forgiven me so why do I need to 180? Either Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins or he didn't.

Nick Park wrote: »

No, there's a gap in your reasoning here. The New Testament tells us that those who lived before Christ (such as Abraham) did believe in (or more properly 'put their faith in') Jesus. Throughout the Old Testament there were numerous promises from God, and an entire sacrificial system that foreshadowed the coming of Jesus as the one perfect sacrifice. People who lived and died before the coming of Jesus nevertheless believed these promises and it was reckoned to them as righteousness (Galatians 3:5-7).

And all those that didn't believe in Jesus went to hell, so any Romans stationed there at the time went to hell as they heard of Jesus but the Romans did not convert for another 300 years

Nick Park wrote: »

The Bible doesn't actually tell us what happens to those who don't get to hear of Jesus. It is essentially a practical book to tell us how we can know God, not to satisfy every philosophical or theological question we might have. The important thing is that you and I have both heard about Jesus, and the Bible tells us how we can act upon that knowledge by accepting the free gift of salvation that is made possible through His sacrificial death.

But I guess one must logically assume that people who have not heard of Jesus cannot be blamed for not believing n him, and since Jesus took away their sins they are welcomed into the kingdom of heaven.

But again, it call into question the point of Jesus death. Abraham believed in God and, I assume, went to heaven so it was not necessary for Jesus to die. Or was it that until Jesus died even Abraham, Moses and John the Baptist etc could not enter heaven as God still held their sins over them? Is believing in God not enough?

Nick Park

Leroy42 wrote: »

But God has already forgiven me so why do I need to 180? Either Jesus died for the forgiveness of sins or he didn't.

God has offered you forgiveness, but you need to make a decision whether to accept it or not. That decision is radical and life-changing.

And all those that didn't believe in Jesus went to hell, so any Romans stationed there at the time went to hell as they heard of Jesus but the Romans did not convert for another 300 years.

That might be your belief, but it isn't actually what the Bible says.

But I guess one must logically assume that people who have not heard of Jesus cannot be blamed for not believing n him, and since Jesus took away their sins they are welcomed into the kingdom of heaven.

No, you can't logically assume that. You can logically acknowledge that we don't know about the fate of such people and concentrate on making sure that we make the right decision concerning ourselves.

But again, it call into question the point of Jesus death. Abraham believed in God and, I assume, went to heaven so it was not necessary for Jesus to die. Or was it that until Jesus died even Abraham, Moses and John the Baptist etc could not enter heaven as God still held their sins over them?

'Heaven' isn't actually the point. The New Testament teaches that our future hope is to be resurrected from the dead and to dwell in the presence of God. Abraham, Moses and John the Baptist etc believed God's promises about the promised Saviour that would come - and on that basis they were saved. We can be saved on the basis of our believing the testimony that Jesus has come and trusting in the promises of God.

Is believing in God not enough?

Not if you don't accept the free offer of salvation. Heck, even Satan believes in God.

Leroy42

Nick Park wrote: »

God has offered you forgiveness, but you need to make a decision whether to accept it or not. That decision is radical and life-changing.

But God had offered that before, so why did Jesus have to die?

Nick Park wrote: »

That might be your belief, but it isn't actually what the Bible says.

So you don't have to believe in Jesus? Sorry, which is it?

Nick Park wrote: »

No, you can't logically assume that. You can logically acknowledge that we don't know about the fate of such people and concentrate on making sure that we make the right decision concerning ourselves.

This is true that we can't assume, but being an all loving God it would seem unfair in the extreme to hold this against those that never had the opportunity to believe in Jesus

Nick Park wrote: »

'Heaven' isn't actually the point. The New Testament teaches that our future hope is to be resurrected from the dead and to dwell in the presence of God. Abraham, Moses and John the Baptist etc believed God's promises about the promised Saviour that would come - and on that basis they were saved. We can be saved on the basis of our believing the testimony that Jesus has come and trusting in the promises of God.

Again, it raises the question of what the point of the sacrifice of Jesus was? If believe in God is based on faith, they why would God send down a very clear and obvious fulfilment of the promise so that faith was removed from the equation? And if he deemed it was relevant then, why not do it again not that the world population has increased many fold?

Nick Park wrote: »

Not if you don't accept the free offer of salvation. Heck, even Satan believes in God.

Terms and conditions apply I guess! God forgave our sins through the death of Jesus but only if you believe in Jesus, so at best Jesus only managed to get 50% of the human race saved (I made up that number obv based on % of Christians around the world etc but the point is that all others are not saved despite his sacrifice)

Nick Park

Leroy42 wrote: »

But God had offered that before, so why did Jesus have to die?

God offered forgiveness on the basis of Jesus' promised coming. That is the basis on which Abraham and others received salvation.

Maybe you should read the Book of Galatians in the New Testament? It explains all this quite well.

So you don't have to believe in Jesus? Sorry, which is it?

You and I, who have heard the Gospel, certainly have to put our faith in Jesus if we want to be saved.

We can't say with any certainty about others who were in a different set of circumstances. We can trust God to be just and fair, but we can't assume anything else.

This is true that we can't assume, but being an all loving God it would seem unfair in the extreme to hold this against those that never had the opportunity to believe in Jesus

We can't assume. But God would not be unfair, even if he allowed everyone who has sinned to go to hell. The opportunity to be saved is not something any of us deserve or have a right to. It is an amazing unmerited gift.

Again, it raises the question of what the point of the sacrifice of Jesus was? If believe in God is based on faith, they why would God send down a very clear and obvious fulfilment of the promise so that faith was removed from the equation? And if he deemed it was relevant then, why not do it again not that the world population has increased many fold?

The price had to be paid for sin. And it was paid once and for all, one time.

Faith is not removed from the equation. The only way you or I can be saved is through faith in Jesus Christ, His death on the Cross, and by accepting His gift of salvation and forgiveness.

Leroy42

Nick Park wrote: »

God offered forgiveness on the basis of Jesus' promised coming. That is the basis on which Abraham and others received salvation.

So god offered forgiveness on the promise of Jesus coming, were they forgiven prior to Jesus death or only after? If after then were they in hell until that time? If before, then again, why did Jesus have to die?

Nick Park wrote: »

Maybe you should read the Book of Galatians in the New Testament? It explains all this quite well.

The Book of Galatians may make sense to you, but I am struggling to make sense of it (why did Jesus die) hence the question.

Nick Park wrote: »

You and I, who have heard the Gospel, certainly have to put our faith in Jesus if we want to be saved.

We can't say with any certainty about others who were in a different set of circumstances. We can trust God to be just and fair, but we can't assume anything else.

But it seems on that basis that only some sins were forgiven by God on the death on Jesus, the sin of not believing has not been forgiven. If not all sins then why bother? He sent himself, as his only son, down to be tortured and sacrificed which would only be useful if people actually believed he was God.

Nick Park wrote: »

We can't assume. But God would not be unfair, even if he allowed everyone who has sinned to go to hell. The opportunity to be saved is not something any of us deserve or have a right to. It is an amazing unmerited gift.

What have we got to be saved from? God forgave us our sins, through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Nick Park wrote: »

The price had to be paid for sin. And it was paid once and for all, one time.

Not according to you it wasn't. I can still go to hell for the sin of non-belief so sins have not been forgiven.

Nick Park wrote: »

Faith is not removed from the equation. The only way you or I can be saved is through faith in Jesus Christ, His death on the Cross, and by accepting His gift of salvation and forgiveness.

I don't disagree with that, but again it prompts the question of why is needed to die? You have already stated that only some sins were forgiven, the key point in gaining salvation of believing in Jesus. Jesus could have continued his ministry, continued to preach and provide miracles, continued to expand his following and when he died (and he could have just as easily remained alive to show is immortality to all) he could then rise from the dead.

No need for a blood sacrifice, especially one that fits in so well with the way that some many others were killed during the Roman occupation.

uck51js9zml2yt

It's like saying you're thirsty and being given a glass of water.
If you leave the glass sitting on the table and don't drink it, the need it not met even though the provision is there.
Jesus died for all sin, the provision is there. Repentance and faith meet enable it to be effective in our lives. Think of them as drinking the water.

Nick Park

Leroy42 wrote: »

So god offered forgiveness on the promise of Jesus coming, were they forgiven prior to Jesus death or only after? If after then were they in hell until that time? If before, then again, why did Jesus have to die?

Without over-complicating things, it's fair to say that they were forgiven on the basis of their faith in the future sacrifice of Jesus. They certainly weren't in hell (as we normally use that term to refer to a place of punishment).

Why did Jesus have to die? Because without His death there could be no salvation.

I think you are probably confusing yourself unnecessarily over the timeline of this. Remember that God is eternal and stands outside of our human linear approach to time. He sees the end from the beginning. For God there probably isn't really a 'before' or an 'after'. Everything simply 'is'.

But it seems on that basis that only some sins were forgiven by God on the death on Jesus, the sin of not believing has not been forgiven. If not all sins then why bother? He sent himself, as his only son, down to be tortured and sacrificed which would only be useful if people actually believed he was God.

It's not so much that the sin of 'not believing' is unforgiven. All sin is judicially forgiven due to the death of Christ. But that forgiveness has to be received in order to be effective. It's a bit like a prisoner who receives a pardon but refuses to leave his prison cell. Or a drowning man who refuses to grab the lifebelt you toss to him.

Not according to you it wasn't. I can still go to hell for the sin of non-belief so sins have not been forgiven.

No, you can go to hell if you refuse to accept the offer to go anywhere better.

God won't drag you kicking and screaming into His presence.

You have already stated that only some sins were forgiven, the key point in gaining salvation of believing in Jesus.

No, I've stated that all sins forgiven. If a drowning man refuses to grab the lifebelt, then you can hardly claim that he is being punished by drowning for the sin not believing in the coastguard.

LorMal

I really like your interpretation Nick. We choose heaven or hell. It is not imposed on us by God. Our sins are forgiven, if we sincerely wish them to be.

J C

Giacomo McGubbin wrote: »

Genesis primarily refers to spiritual death. Traditional Christianity and Judaism understanding of Genesis is neither completely literal nor completely allegory. Scripture is primarily concerned with spirituality not physicality. It's more nuanced than that.

From the CCC
Quote:
The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents (CCC 390).

Scripture is concerned with both the physical and the spiritual ... and the quote you have provided neatly summarises what was achieved by Jesus Christ's death ...
... this is also neatly summarised in 1 Corinthians 15:21-22 (NIV)

21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.

J C

LorMal wrote: »

I really like your interpretation Nick. We choose heaven or hell. It is not imposed on us by God. Our sins are forgiven, if we sincerely wish them to be.

... our sins are forgiven if we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to forgive them.

endacl

Possibly facetious non-believer slant:

If the reward for a life well-lived is eternal life, nobody dies. Death is a transition, not an ending. If Jesus rose again on the third day, he didn't die. He transitioned back, before transitioning up.

If Revelations is to be accepted at face value, then Jesus (God) "will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." The implication of eternal life is that there never was an 'old order of things', but an old misunderstanding of the order of things.

If that's the ultimate conclusion, eternal life for everybody, and Jesus didn't die at all, surely there's a continuity issue with the whole thing?

N365

What did Jesus change in the world?

Pugzilla

Nothing.

Imaginary friends are fun when you're 4, not 40.