Jesus sacrficied what?

MorningStar

First off I want to say I mean no offense and generally am curious about the religion I was rasied with but no longer practice.
Recently I went to a mass and noticed a lot of the prayers and means that I was not able to question when I was being "taught" it.

Anyway Jesus is the son of God and he suffered on the cross for us. Didn't many people suffer on the cross for reasons a lot greater than complaining about how the church was run and allowing the church be used as a market? Sparticus fought a revolt and he and many of his followers were crucified.

God opened the gates for Jesus because he was his son. Either God gave up his son or Jesus opposed his fathers view and forced him to open the gates of heaven. It just seems muddled in some way in my memory and I doubt the teachings are so strange.

How big a sacrifice is anything if you aren't actually mortal anyway.

There seems to be more angels than mentioned in the bible what other books are used in the bedrock of Catholisim?

DublinWriter

MorningStar wrote:

There seems to be more angels than mentioned in the bible what other books are used in the bedrock of Catholisim?

There were a rake load of gospels excluded from the 'official' version of the Bible in the 5th century, many have only been discovered in the middle east in the last century.

There's a very good Ch4 documentary called 'Who Wrote the Bible' that goes into this ad nauseum and details the split between the Eastern and Western Christian churches.

MorningStar

DublinWriter wrote:

There were a rake load of gospels excluded from the 'official' version of the Bible in the 5th century, many have only been discovered in the middle east in the last century.

There's a very good Ch4 documentary called 'Who Wrote the Bible' that goes into this ad nauseum and details the split between the Eastern and Western Christian churches.

I saw the show but I really meant the other books about the angels and what hell is like etc... not the differnet versions of the bible. I know some books are apparently based on the cutting room floor but they don't seem to be part of Catholisim but I don't know.

Excelsior

DublinWriter wrote:

There were a rake load of gospels excluded from the 'official' version of the Bible in the 5th century, many have only been discovered in the middle east in the last century.

Although its more like the last 150 years since we have discovered non-canonical accounts of Christ, they do exist. You can read them on the web for free.

Try here for example

They weren't left on the cutting room floor in the 400s however. There is clear historical record of the tradition that we now understand to be Christianity reading the canon that we use today in almost exact replica across the Mediterranean by 150-200AD- ie within 2 generations of the canon texts having been written.

I'll respond to the main query over the weekend.

Excelsior

MorningStar wrote:

Anyway Jesus is the son of God and he suffered on the cross for us. Didn't many people suffer on the cross for reasons a lot greater than complaining about how the church was run and allowing the church be used as a market?

Archeologists and historians are obviously vague on how many people were killed by crucifixtion during the Palestinian occupation but I have read of as many as 100,000. One ancient text talks for sure about 2 criminals being crucified, which is indeed a much more reasonable situation than getting hung on the cross for "just being a nice man" in the words of Douglas Adams.

But then you have to ask yourself why they'd hang a nice man. Jesus wasn't just a travelling cynic dropping pleasant words of wisdom into the mouths of the people and making them look beyond themselves. He was claiming to be the promised Messiah of Yahweh and thousands were beginning to consider that as true. He arrives in Jerusalem on passover, when a million or so Jews would have clogged up the city, making security an even greater headache for the Romans and the Temple leaders. He wasn't complaining about the church because no church yet existed. It was an idea he and his followers created. He wasn't just having a go at lads selling birds in the temple, he was declaring that the age of the temple had passed and that because of him, everyone, regardless of whether they were racially Jewish and ceremonially circumcised and male, everyone could have a relationship with God.

He was killed because he said he was the meaning of life and thousands if not tens of thousands of people were starting to believe him.

God opened the gates for Jesus because he was his son. Either God gave up his son or Jesus opposed his fathers view and forced him to open the gates of heaven. It just seems muddled in some way in my memory and I doubt the teachings are so strange.

God gave up his son and Jesus gave himself up. In the Garden of Gethsemene Jesus asks God if there is another way, can we all take that route. There isn't. So Jesus goes to the cross. In the very next verses after the ones I've linked you to, Judas' betrayal leads to Jesus' arrest.

Sin, however you define it and whether you are a Christian or not, is humanity's major problem- people making mistakes and hurting other people and themselves. We've all done it. Christianity and Judaism say that God is perfectly loving and perfectly just. He loves us infinitely but he can't keep up a close relationship, come into contact with, that which would defile his pure justice.

So Judeo-Christianity says we're in a dilly of a pickle. The sin can't be accounted for by sacrifice of animals or saying sorry to the corpse of the person we've just killed. We can't make good on this sin, which keeps us out of relationship with God and so leads to our spiritual death.

God balances his justice and his love by becoming Jesus, a man without sin. He goes to the cross to pay the price that we ought to have paid. All our sin is forgiven because Jesus died for it and then rose again. He has to rise again and not just merely die because if he defeats sin, its power will be broken and he will live again.

That is a brief and very crude description of what Easter means. It is often called penal substitution in theological terms if you want to google it.

How big a sacrifice is anything if you aren't actually mortal anyway.

He was fully man. He was mortal. (Well, Christianity would believe this) Technically it is called the hypostatic union. Jesus was fully God and fully man. A word often used for it, especially around Christmas-time, is incarnation. That literally could be translated as "down to earth". Jesus was God who had come down to Earth. He did die on the cross and that was as great a sacrifice as any torturer could devise. The question is, did he rise again?

There seems to be more angels than mentioned in the bible what other books are used in the bedrock of Catholisim?

My family background is Catholic but I don't practice Catholicism anymore and I am far from expert in this area or angelology (seriously, that is the appropriate term!)

MorningStar

Excelsior wrote:

He was killed because he said he was the meaning of life and thousands if not tens of thousands of people were starting to believe him.

Ok I see the reson was more important a view than I meant. The reason is important as a religious belief and I accept that. It makes sense he was a treat to power in some manner. Like any political upstart maybe as Hitler was. THe reason for it makes little or no difference as I don't believe that anybody actually was purely evil set on destroying the son of God. It makes more sense they wanted to keep the peace and Jesus was a threat to that.
But I am sure there were other political crucifixions with other people dying for their beliefs. Considering that why we should talk of Jesus'. Yes he did suffer but surely other people have too and probably suffered more. Sparticus is no joke on this he and many of his men died the same way.

Excelsior wrote:

God gave up his son and Jesus gave himself up. In the Garden of Gethsemene Jesus asks God if there is another way, can we all take that route. There isn't. So Jesus goes to the cross. In the very next verses after the ones I've linked you to, Judas' betrayal leads to Jesus' arrest.

An all powerful being has no other option? He is aware of what will happen the deaths connected to this new religion and it is still the only option and anybody else who doesn't belive in Jesus will not make it to heaven.
From your bible quote everybody is asleep and Jesus goes off on his own and they still know what he said?

Excelsior wrote:

Sin, however you define it and whether you are a Christian or not, is humanity's major problem- people making mistakes and hurting other people and themselves.

First you need a belief in sin and not all people do. There are many views that wouldn't agree with that view.

Excelsior wrote:

We've all done it. Christianity and Judaism say that God is perfectly loving and perfectly just. He loves us infinitely but he can't keep up a close relationship, come into contact with, that which would defile his pure justice.

How just is it to condem all people to a sin they have never commited and was only commited once by our ancestors. I don't think there is any judicial system in the world condems children for there grandparents crime.

Excelsior wrote:

He has to rise again and not just merely die because if he defeats sin, its power will be broken and he will live again.

How did he defeat sin? Is it just by not commiting any sin? Anger at the sellers can be seen as sin in modern times

Excelsior wrote:

He was fully man. He was mortal. (Well, Christianity would believe this) Technically it is called the hypostatic union. Jesus was fully God and fully man. A word often used for it, especially around Christmas-time, is incarnation. That literally could be translated as "down to earth". Jesus was God who had come down to Earth. He did die on the cross and that was as great a sacrifice as any torturer could devise. The question is, did he rise again?

It still doesn't sound like he was putting himself at any risk. He was not going to cease to exist. It is also only probable he existed no certanty "he did die" or the man who died was the man born under a sign that also tranformed water to wine. Robin hood was more recent and is belived to be 4 to 5 differnet people. It is faith that I get just want to see how it resolves itself with in religious belief.

AndyWarhol

That's great MorningStar, but how can anything come from your nothingness? You've turned your back on your own faith which you were baptised in to and ought be be ashamed of yourself.

So you feel your qualified to go it alone and interpret truth for yourself? What does the idea of eternity mean to you? Doesn't the very thought of eternity frighten you as a non-believer?

smidgy

Yes he did suffer but surely other people have too and probably suffered more. Sparticus is no joke on this he and many of his men died the same way.

As Jesus was both man and god he suffered this torture as man and god. For God to go through such a belittling and horrendus act it does deserve our special attention. We do not know the enormity of God going through such
an act as a human.

"An all powerful being has no other option?"

Of course there was another option, God could turn the whole of creation to dust if he wanted to but things are the way they are because this is our reality that we share with God the one that Jesus shares with the father too. This is existence for us and God as God meant it to be. Things are they way they are because that is the way we can understand God and the way he is. He cannot circumvent creation and reality to buypass a difficult phase.

Jesus goes off on his own and they still know what he said?

All of the bible was written after Jesus death by people inspired by the spirit. There wasnt somebody sneaking around recording Jesus as he said certain things.

How just is it to condem all people to a sin they have never commited and was only commited once by our ancestors. I don't think there is any judicial system in the world condems children for there grandparents crime.

I realise this is a very daunting question - why should we pay for the disobenience of our ancestors? The disobenience spoken of in the bible is as I understand it is the collective disobedience of the human race. i dont think there was one bloke Adam who ****ed it all up for us. The fault with the human race was its desire for knowledge. We were innocent in the garden but our desire for knowledge brought us here so that we may choose God or choose otherwise.

How did he defeat sin?

He defeated sin by reconcling us with God. In the old testament the human race had not been reconciled with God after the incident in the garden. The human race was still a fallen race. Jesus reconciled us with God by giving himself up for the cleansing of the human race. He defeated the original sin that distanced us from God.

DublinWriter

smidgy wrote:

All of the bible was written after Jesus death by people inspired by the spirit. There wasnt somebody sneaking around recording Jesus as he said certain things.

Including the Old Testament?!?

smidgy wrote:

i dont think there was one bloke Adam who ****ed it all up for us. The fault with the human race was its desire for knowledge. We were innocent in the garden but our desire for knowledge brought us here so that we may choose God or choose otherwise.

Damn that desire for knowledge! We should have stayed in the mud huts.

smidgy wrote:

He defeated sin by reconcling us with God. In the old testament the human race had not been reconciled with God after the incident in the garden. The human race was still a fallen race. Jesus reconciled us with God by giving himself up for the cleansing of the human race. He defeated the original sin that distanced us from God.

So in effect, you're saying that the Jews are screwed?

smidgy

DublinWriter wrote:

Including the Old Testament?!?

Sorry for the slight :eek: innaccuracy - you know what I mean

DublinWriter wrote:

So in effect, you're saying that the Jews are screwed?

As far as i know the Jews are not screwed. They still try to honour the old covenant which they regard as their path to God and whether they like it or not Jesus died for their sins too!

MorningStar

smidgy wrote:

As Jesus was both man and god he suffered this torture as man and god. For God to go through such a belittling and horrendus act it does deserve our special attention. We do not know the enormity of God going through such
an act as a human.

And he would never know the feeling of a human who is mortal and no understanding of not existing after being tortured. Or the helplessness of not being able to protect families after death.

smidgy wrote:

Of course there was another option, God could turn the whole of creation to dust if he wanted to but things are the way they are because this is our reality that we share with God the one that Jesus shares with the father too. This is existence for us and God as God meant it to be. Things are they way they are because that is the way we can understand God and the way he is. He cannot circumvent creation and reality to buypass a difficult phase.

He is all powerful he can turn water to wine, part a sea, plague, kill those with our lambs blood on their door etc... Sounds like he can circumvent creation. We don't understand God if we stop gap any issues with blindness calling it faith doesn't make it so.

smidgy wrote:

All of the bible was written after Jesus death by people inspired by the spirit. There wasnt somebody sneaking around recording Jesus as he said certain things.

The majority of people wouldn't believe anybody who siad they were inspired by God to write down what happened 4 or 5 generations previously. I don't want to attack the Bible.

smidgy wrote:

I realise this is a very daunting question - why should we pay for the disobenience of our ancestors? The disobenience spoken of in the bible is as I understand it is the collective disobedience of the human race. i dont think there was one bloke Adam who ****ed it all up for us. The fault with the human race was its desire for knowledge. We were innocent in the garden but our desire for knowledge brought us here so that we may choose God or choose otherwise.

Actually who bite the apple first? Was it not Eve?

smidgy wrote:

He defeated sin by reconcling us with God. In the old testament the human race had not been reconciled with God after the incident in the garden. The human race was still a fallen race. Jesus reconciled us with God by giving himself up for the cleansing of the human race. He defeated the original sin that distanced us from God.

Jesus never cleansed the human race we still have original sin. How did his death clean us of anything and not just add the extra sin of killing God's son? Why change his style from thunder and lightening and great kings to a illegitimate child of a 13 girl?

Dades

smidgy wrote:

We were innocent in the garden but our desire for knowledge brought us here so that we may choose God or choose otherwise.

Normally I stay out of this type of discussion here, but these sort of non-answers drive me bananas.

To me they represent some sort of screen; one which I keep expecting Toto the dog to run behind and knock down at any moment.

MorningStar

I know what you mean some people can't answer questions on their own religion with out assuming that it some form of riddicule. In fairness it is some times hard for people to seperate their faith from the teachings of their church.

MorningStar

.

smidgy

Sounds like he can circumvent creation.

Sorry my post should have read

Of course there was another option, God could turn the whole of creation to dust if he wanted to but things are the way they are because this is our reality that we share with God the one that Jesus shares with the father too. This is existence for us and God as God meant it to be. Things are they way they are because that is the way we can understand God and the way he is. He WILL not circumvent creation and reality to buypass a difficult phase. (because that kinda undermines the reality)

Actually who bite the apple first? Was it not Eve?
The question you should be asking yourself is whether it was a granny smith or a cox's pippen!

Normally I stay out of this type of discussion here, but these sort of non-answers drive me bananas.

So your only input to this discussion is to say you havent found any answers here. You could make that post on any board.

In fairness it is some times hard for people to seperate their faith from the teachings of their church.

Mate all I know is what has been written in the bible and that which I have learned primarily from the catholic church. I have investigated many issues that I have been dubious about in the Catholic faith and their position has stood up to all the questions that I have thrown at it. For me, the theology behind catholicism goes hand and hand with the bible. If I was a smarter person I could come up with my own intrepretation of the bible - the intrepretation of 'one', and my own theology - the theology of 'one'. But I think I would chancing my arm doing that. The Catholic teaching , for me, is the best that I may have.

DublinWriter

smidgy wrote:

The question you should be asking yourself is whether it was a granny smith or a cox's pippen!

That would be an ecumenical matter.

juddd

Jesus freely sacrificed his life for us, as he was being beaten and whipped he could have easily stopped it, he could have fought back with the wrath of God but that is not the way of a holy man.
If you knew you were going to be sacrificed in the worst way possible just as jesus knew, how would you act, you would fight back and try by any means to not let it go ahead, but jesus accepted his faith and freely gave up his life, if you ask me that is the ultimate sacrifice, I mean we can't even sacrifice a few quid for people in need these day's never mind our own lifes.

robindch

> Jesus freely sacrificed his life for us, as he was being beaten and
> whipped he could have easily stopped it, he could have fought
> back with the wrath of God but that is not the way of a holy man.

Many people have suggested that he did not fight back not so much because he was a holy man able to call upon the wrath of god, but more simly because he was unable to, as a reading of Mark 27:46 would suggest.

> I mean we can't even sacrifice a few quid for people in need these day's

Wrong.

For the last seven years, the income of registered charities in the UK has been growing, year on year, faster than the rate of inflation. See http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/factfigures.asp and I would imagine that Ireland is much the same as the UK, though I can't find any stats.

juddd

robindch wrote:

> Jesus freely sacrificed his life for us, as he was being beaten and
> whipped he could have easily stopped it, he could have fought
> back with the wrath of God but that is not the way of a holy man.

Many people have suggested that he did not fight back not so much because he was a holy man able to call upon the wrath of god, but more simly because he was unable to, as a reading of Mark 27:46 would suggest.

Thats an interesting translation of those words, but what of a man who had the power to prevent the crusifiction but did'nt, but instead let the brutallity continue till the ghost was given up, maybe his powers were subdued by god as god knew of the pain to come and if jesus had any powers he would most likely use them to end his suffering and if that happened then I think religion would be much different today.

robindch wrote:

> I mean we can't even sacrifice a few quid for people in need these day's

Wrong.

For the last seven years, the income of registered charities in the UK has been growing, year on year, faster than the rate of inflation. See http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/factfigures.asp and I would imagine that Ireland is much the same as the UK, though I can't find any stats.

I am well aware of the amount of people out there busting their gut to help others and they all deserve praise for their dedication, but I was talking about us as individuals who pass by begars on the street with our pockets full of change or keep to ourselves for fear of being used.
It's good to see there are more charities out there, there is hope for us yet.
Thanks for the stats.

robindch

> Thats an interesting translation of those words

Interesting? Hardly! I don't see too many meanings coming from "my god, why have you forsaken me?", other than as a heartfelt exclamation that whatever he'd expected to happen, didn't happen. BTW, if Jesus was one third of god, then why was he addressing him as a separate entity over whom he'd no control?

> us as individuals who pass by beggars on the street
> with our pockets full of change or keep to ourselves
> for fear of being used.

...and quite rightly too! Speaking as a former part-time worker, for five years, in one of the homeless shelters in Dublin, on the quiet evenings, we did debate whether or not handing out money on the streets was a good thing and concluded that it was only in the rarest of occasions that it actually was doing any good, and frequently causing or sustaining a lot of harm. (Incidentally, of the twelve or so people I knew who worked there, I recall that there were only two regular church-goers, the rest being either agnostic or atheist. Make of that what you will...)

Excelsior

Those words of Jesus, as Robin knows, are a direct quote from Psalm 22. I also suspect Robin knows from the early Creeds that Christian belief holds that the three days of Easter were spent in hell, which is defined as the absence from God. This os the central mystery of Christianity.

Jesus is a distinct person within the Trinity. Christianity is not tri-theistic but it does hold that the monotheism consists of three persons, which gives rise to the mystery noted above. In Gethsemane he handed himself over to the will of his Father and that is why his words to God the Father have the form they take.

robindch

> Those words of Jesus, as Robin knows, are a direct quote from Psalm 22.

Indeed they are, though I don't yet see how this changes the meaning of (one version of) what Jesus said as he died, having "handed himself over" to the will of god or not.

> I also suspect Robin knows from the early Creeds that Christian
> belief holds that the three days of Easter were spent in hell...

Nope, I can't say honestly that I remember this -- thanks for letting me know

> ...which is defined as the absence from God.

...which, in turn, begs the question of the meaningfulness of the christian concept of 'absence from god'. If god is omnipresent (Jeremiah 23:24) within the universe which he's claimed to have created, then surely he's in 'hell' too? Alternatively, we could consult Psalm 139:8 ((Oh, Lord [...]) "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."), which suggests, to me at least, that the proposed definition may not be (w)holy accurate.

> This is the central mystery of Christianity.

I'm certainly mystified!

Excelsior

Indeed you are. But Robin, you know by now that mostly this board will leave space for good friendly honest discussion. As such, taking the poetry of the Psalms and reading it as you have appears to be a cynical move intended to win an argument. Let's have a discussion instead.

At this point I can honestly say that I have nothing to contribute to remove the dense mystery of those 3 days of Easter. I understand that the category of mystery is one we should be highly skeptical of. All that I can say (and I know that in a forum like this it is essentially useless) is that I sense a profound truth within that mystery. I guess you could talk about it in terms of awe and wonder and all that good Kierkegaard stuff. You might not think it good at all?

robindch

> reading it as you have appears to be a cynical move
> intended to win an argument.

Humble apologies -- it's not intended to be cynical.

I am however, as I've said before, endlessly perplexed and interested by the flat-out contradictions in the bible which turn up in every place I look, but despite which, people still have such unshakable confidence in the text of the book. Amongst other things, I'm interested in finding out *why* believers will choose one particular interpretation of a sentence or a text over another one, when both are equally plausible (or implausible). And other than the worthy Excelsior, I don't believe I've ever come across any believers who have been able to admit the existence of any contradictions, or even simple alternate readings, in terms other than "you're wrong and I'm right".

As I said, it's perplexing, but fascinating.

> I sense a profound truth within that mystery

Well, perhaps you could spell out the mystery (presumably the dying and rising from the dead?), and the profound truth, and see where we can go from there?