Did Jesus really have to die for our sins?

[jasonwill2]

That doesn't address my point, which was:

That's why exegesis is so important. What's your excuse for not engaging some?

It is. but to the ancient mind set, it would have made perfect sense.
Again: Exegesis.

How is it "based on a human sacrifice?" Even if it was based on the crucifixion (which is an untenable claim at best), in what way is the crucifixion a "human sacrifice?" A human sacrifice is a religious ceremony, designed to incur the succor of deity. The crucifixion was a state execution and act of terrorism, designed to quell a mob.

God didn't make it that way. The Romans and Sanhedrin made it that way.

Obviously, you haven't done your homework.

Christianity is based on salvation through Jesus's death, how is it not based on a sacrifice? Also the "Ceremony" was not the intent of those killing him, but it basically came out to that in function in what role it plays in Christianity.

Also I don't care how Christians see it, because they are blind due to their odd way of looking at it. I look at it for what it is: hypocritcal. They go on and on about Satanists and blood and human sacrifice, yet RIGHT THERE in their book their god was sacrificed for their salvation. Don't believe me? Jesus was the "lamb", in the sense that like the lambs that were sacrificed at the Temple, so would he. It is definitely clear for anyone who knows the Bible well enough that the spilling of Jesus's blood was the payment for sins in the EXACT same way that animals were, only that since he was god, it would last forever and not be temporary like with the animals. Hence as the animal sacrifices were an image of Christ's coming, so was his death A LITERAL HUMAN SACRIFICE.

And if you somehow object to this view, keep in mind that this is what I was taught when I was a Christian, and shown in the Bible. It's not my beliefs, at least not anymore, but it is essentially what Christianity is about, at least in terms of those who are "Bible believing".

But it actually doesn't make sense to be a Christian and not believe in the Bible, and so I assume Christians believe in at least the Bible, even if with other things:

THE SATANIC BIBLE

Book of Lucifer

"Some Evidence of a New Satanic Age"

"When one name is no longer appropriate for a given thing it is only logical to change it to a new one which better fits the subject. Why, then, do we not follow suit in the area of religion? Why continue to call a religion the same name when the tenets of that religion no longer fit the original one? Or, if religion does preach the same things that it always has, but its followers practice nearly none of its teachings, why do they continue to call themselves by the name given to followers of that religion?

If you do not believe in what your religion teaches, why continue to support a belief which is contradictory with your feelings. You would never vote for a person or issue you did not believe in, so why cast your ecclesiastical vote for a religion which is not consistent with your convictions? You have no right to complain about a political situation you have voted for or supported in any way - which includes sitting back and complacently agreeing with neighbors who approve the situation, just because you are too lazy or cowardly to speak your mind. So it is with religious balloting. Even if you cannot be aggressively honest about your opinions because of unfavorable consequences from employers, community leaders, etc., you can, at least, be honest with yourself. In the privacy of your own home and with close friends you must support religion which has YOUR best interests at heart. "

It seems to me that if you do not believe in the Bible or Jesus's teachings, then you should just stop calling yourself a Christian. Likewise, any "Bible-believing" Christian essentially is embracing a human sacrifice as his ticket to paradise. Sure, it was a one time only sacrifice to end all blood sacrifice, but it was still a human sacrifice which is my entire point.
​

 

[Thief]

More to the point:
For Mark, drinking blood is an act of extreme uncleanliness. For Mark, God became unclean for us, through the taking on of human flesh, for dying an impure death. This image -- for Mark, especially -- is highly symbolic.

So are you speaking for Mark?....to say 'unclean' in the manner that Jewish belief would have you say?

Jewish didn't bear any sin as He hung upon the cross.
Not my sins...or yours.

A bloody death?...yeah.
A cleansing death?...nay.

His salvation is in His teachings.
He spoke of them as a baptism of fire....not water.

 

[waitasec]

How is it "based on a human sacrifice?" Even if it was based on the crucifixion (which is an untenable claim at best), in what way is the crucifixion a "human sacrifice?" A human sacrifice is a religious ceremony, designed to incur the succor of deity. The crucifixion was a state execution and act of terrorism, designed to quell a mob.

really?
he came to bare his cross.

Mark 10: 38
But Jesus answered, "You don't know what you are asking! Are you able to drink from the bitter cup of sorrow I am about to drink? Are you able to be baptized with the baptism of suffering I must be baptized with?

 

[sojourner]

Christianity is based on salvation through Jesus's death,

For Mark, certainly. But not for Matthew or Luke, and certainly not for Paul.

Also the "Ceremony" was not the intent of those killing him, but it basically came out to that in function in what role it plays in Christianity.

No it doesn't. Not if we're being honest.

Also I don't care how Christians see it, because they are blind due to their odd way of looking at it.

Excuse me?!

I look at it for what it is: hypocritcal.

Pot, meet Kettle.

RIGHT THERE in their book their god was sacrificed for their salvation.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide the specific references for your claim?

Jesus was the "lamb", in the sense that like the lambs that were sacrificed at the Temple, so would he.

Mk. Again -- a metaphorical statement that's being taken waaaay too literally.

It is definitely clear for anyone who knows the Bible well enough that the spilling of Jesus's blood was the payment for sins in the EXACT same way that animals were, only that since he was god, it would last forever and not be temporary like with the animals.

Substitutionary Atonement is one way of looking at it, but it's not the only way -- or the best way, IMO.

Hence as the animal sacrifices were an image of Christ's coming, so was his death A LITERAL HUMAN SACRIFICE.

Inadequate theological development here.

And if you somehow object to this view, keep in mind that this is what I was taught when I was a Christian, and shown in the Bible.

Yeah. Substitutionary Atonement has ruined a lot of Christians.

it is essentially what Christianity is about, at least in terms of those who are "Bible believing".

I believe in the Bible. But I don't believe "that's what Xy is all about."

It seems to me that if you do not believe in the Bible or Jesus's teachings, then you should just stop calling yourself a Christian.

Has it occurred to you that it's what one believes about the Bible that's important?

Likewise, any "Bible-believing" Christian essentially is embracing a human sacrifice as his ticket to paradise.

I certainly don't. And I don't believe there is a "ticket to paradise."

but it was still a human sacrifice which is my entire point.

It was a self-sacrificial act on the part of a human being. That's far different than a ritual human sacrifice.

Sorry. No dice.

 

[sojourner]

So are you speaking for Mark?....to say 'unclean' in the manner that Jewish belief would have you say?

Jewish didn't bear any sin as He hung upon the cross.
Not my sins...or yours.

A bloody death?...yeah.
A cleansing death?...nay.

His salvation is in His teachings.
He spoke of them as a baptism of fire....not water.

This doesn't speak to my post.
At all.

 

[sojourner]

really?
he came to bare his cross.

Mark 10: 38
But Jesus answered, "You don't know what you are asking! Are you able to drink from the bitter cup of sorrow I am about to drink? Are you able to be baptized with the baptism of suffering I must be baptized with?

Well, according to Mark, the cross is salvific -- and not in a particularly good way.
But other writers have far different ideas.

 

[Thief]

This doesn't speak to my post.
At all.

So now...if you would...back up and restate your thought.
Then I will try again.

 

[jasonwill2]

What if we just all forget about Jesus and worship Satan for a change?

Nah I'm just surprised you people keep going at this.

 

[waitasec]

Well, according to Mark, the cross is salvific -- and not in a particularly good way.
But other writers have far different ideas.

according to paul
2 Corinthians 5:21
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

salvation is not possible without jesus' sacrifice...

 

[Thief]

What if we just all forget about Jesus and worship Satan for a change?

Nah I'm just surprised you people keep going at this.

Perhaps a new thread is in order.
What sacrifice would the devil ask of us?

I say again....The Carpenter died for cause of false accusation.
His death was His alone.

But deception is the work of the devil....is it not?
What if the Christian rant of salvation by the cross is such deception?

 

[jasonwill2]

Perhaps a new thread is in order.
What sacrifice would the devil ask of us?

I say again....The Carpenter died for cause of false accusation.
His death was His alone.

But deception is the work of the devil....is it not?
What if the Christian rant of salvation by the cross is such deception?

devil =/= satan

Satan asks for no sacrifices other than my own emotional energy when casting magic. In this sense the sacrifice is literally just me showing my desire, so in a sense I'm not actually sacrificing anything. This also means that I could sacrifice my anxiety and so it would be gone after doing the ritual.

edit: Satan doesnt need us to sacrifice anything tangible as he doesn't ask that kind of thing of Satanists nor does he need it.

 

[sojourner]

according to paul
2 Corinthians 5:21
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

salvation is not possible without jesus' sacrifice...

Ask the Jews. It certainly is possible.
BTW, for Paul, it's not the cross that's salvific -- it's the church that's salvific.
Paul doesn't mean what you think he means there. He's talking about X's humanity, not sacrifice.

 

[sojourner]

So now...if you would...back up and restate your thought.
Then I will try again.

Notice that Mark always pits a sacrificial and suffering Jesus against the religious authorities. They state that God is clean, pure, tradition, Torah, power. For Mark, God is the opposite: dirty, weak, cross.

For Mark, having the disciples drink blood is an impure thing to do that prefigures the cross.

 

[Thief]

Notice that Mark always pits a sacrificial and suffering Jesus against the religious authorities. They state that God is clean, pure, tradition, Torah, power. For Mark, God is the opposite: dirty, weak, cross.

For Mark, having the disciples drink blood is an impure thing to do that prefigures the cross.

To recap your position...
You then agree that blood events are ineffective?
The death of the Carpenter did nothing for sin?

 

[Thief]

devil =/= satan

Satan asks for no sacrifices other than my own emotional energy when casting magic. In this sense the sacrifice is literally just me showing my desire, so in a sense I'm not actually sacrificing anything. This also means that I could sacrifice my anxiety and so it would be gone after doing the ritual.

edit: Satan doesnt need us to sacrifice anything tangible as he doesn't ask that kind of thing of Satanists nor does he need it.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

When any deed is done in your stead....
Some remittance is expected in return.....no?

I might ask of God a miracle or favor...
I might ask of the devil the very same item...
both would expect my soul in return.....no?

 

[sojourner]

To recap your position...
You then agree that blood events are ineffective?
The death of the Carpenter did nothing for sin?

Yes. According to Mark. The other gospelers have different takes on the matter.

 

[jasonwill2]

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

When any deed is done in your stead....
Some remittance is expected in return.....no?

I might ask of God a miracle or favor...
I might ask of the devil the very same item...
both would expect my soul in return.....no?

the word devil is latin for slanderer

the word satan is hebrew for accuser and adversary. they are two different words. one acts more like a prosecutor to accuse truthfully, and one makes false accusations. the Way the word "Satan" is used in the Old Testament does not add up to the definition "devil" is used in the New Testament (or Satan in the NT for that matter), nor the definition of "devil"

 

[Thief]

the word devil is latin for slanderer

the word satan is hebrew for accuser and adversary. they are two different words. one acts more like a prosecutor to accuse truthfully, and one makes false accusations. the Way the word "Satan" is used in the Old Testament does not add up to the definition "devil" is used in the New Testament (or Satan in the NT for that matter), nor the definition of "devil"

So chasing after this character of such spirit is a good thing?
(Call him any name you please to)

 

[jasonwill2]

So chasing after this character of such spirit is a good thing?
(Call him any name you please to)

I don't have to chase after him, he is part of me... That's like trying to chase after.. well, any part of what makes you you.

 

[Thief]

I don't have to chase after him, he is part of me... That's like trying to chase after.. well, any part of what makes you you.

Does this perspective imply you are self-centered...self-seeking?
If so....what need of you, any deity?