If Jesus is God he sacrificed nothing for us.

[Unveiled Artist]

Hey, Carlita! Long time no talk. Since I know that you love to learn, when I read your question to Scott, I immediately thought of this book.

It has been a long time. I thought you dropped off the edge of the universe.

 

[Katzpur]

If you don't lose anything then you sacrificed nothing.

If God is an all-powerful being, and Jesus is God then he sacrificed nothing on the cross.

If Jesus was just a normal human then he sacrificed everything for us.

If Jesus gave up His mortal life (which He did), He can definitely be said to have sacrificed something. If He was able to rise from the dead of His own volition, He was God.

 

[godnotgod]

"Jesus is often referred to as 'The Lamb of God', which points to the sacrificial lamb"

So? And? What? That does not prove he sacrificed anything at all.

"signifying renewal"

Then it was symbolic and not a real sacrifice.

", but about something pleasing or acceptable as payment for sin in the eyes of God."

So to please this all loving god they had to kill God? And since Jesus came back from the dead, what is that a loop hole that he exploited? I mean if he comes back his life was never really in any danger and was not really sacrificed.

As I said, it is all about the power of the blood to redeem sin. So in order for the shedding of divine blood to occur, the flesh had to be 'sacrificed' not necessarily in the sense that there was a loss, but in the sense of appeasement in the eyes of God.

Jesus, as Lamb of God, was sacrificed in order to shed innocent blood, which had the desired redemptive power.

The Jews actually sacrificed and consumed a spring, or Paschal Lamb upon their being freed from Egyptian bondage.

That Jesus was resurrected in contradiction to his being a sacrificial host is a problem for Christianity as you present it. However, when we add the necessary element of the redemptive power of the blood, then Jesus had to be 'sacrificed' for the blood to be shed for that express purpose.

Only God himself in the form of the flesh and blood Son was acceptable as a pure host. All other sacrificial hosts were imperfect in the eyes of God. That is how the Christian doctrine sees it.

 

[godnotgod]

That sounds like a complicated way of saying if we quiet or minds, we will gain insight in knowledge and thought.

I don't think this happens in a lot of us whose culture is "on the go." Not all cultures are like this so they have more of a grasp at insight to knowledge (or big mind, I guess) than the rest of us do.

I don't like the me vs. them, though. We all are learning about how to gain knowledge and insight by quieting our minds. As well through age and experience, we will find its "nothing special." A good book Zen Mind Beginner's Mind" is a nice way to explain the simplicity of thoughts and motivations that other people make complicated.

Those are my views.

Yes, I am familiar with that book, an excellent source. I was just trying to make clear that there is another pathway that lies beyond Logic, Reason, and Analysis on the one hand, and belief on the other. The degree of insight gained varies, all the way up to the radical transformation of consciousness known as Enlightenment. This intuitive insight is sometimes likened to a darkened room a door to which is opened a little at a time, allowing more and more light to enter.

 

[Baroodi]

If you don't lose anything then you sacrificed nothing.

If God is an all-powerful being, and Jesus is God then he sacrificed nothing on the cross.

If Jesus was just a normal human then he sacrificed everything for us.

Well said logic

 

[Baroodi]

If Jesus (peace be upon him) is God, how he was unable to defend himself? Why he was to suffer while if he Is God, he was supposed to be to be omnipotent. How God can be born after millions of years after the universe was created. Who was the one before him who was keeping an eye on the harmony of the universe? O people wake up!!!

 

[Baroodi]

Some say Jesus is the lamb of God, fine, then you can say he is not God, because he can not be lamb of God and God at the same time

 

[whirlingmerc]

If you don't lose anything then you sacrificed nothing.

If God is an all-powerful being, and Jesus is God then he sacrificed nothing on the cross.

If Jesus was just a normal human then he sacrificed everything for us.

Jesus was both in a sense
He was fully God
He took upon the nature of unfilled man, so he was fully Man at his incarnation
see John 2 'tear down this temple and in 3 days I will raise it" sense human enough to die, divine enough to raise himself

Not only did Jesus sacrifice himself as man, but the Father sent Jesus which was a type of sacrifice,
additionally Jesus was separated from the Father in some sense at the cross

Someone said, if we offend an infinite God with sin we as finite people must pay an infinite price,
but if an infinite God-man paid he would be able to pay in a finite time. Being God and man also makes Jesus the best mediator go between the Father and man

 

[godnotgod]

It does not teach jesus sacrifice was meant for him to die.
It teaches jesus sacrifice was meant for people to live.

The two are inexticably tied together as one event:

I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat is planted in the soil and dies, it remains alone. But its death will produce many new kernels--a plentiful harvest of new lives.
John 12:24

The sacrifice was god becoming human, experiencing hurt as a human, and dying in the flesh as a human. He did die. In the flesh. He losed his flesh.

No one knows that for certain. It is only assumed that he died and was 'resurrected'. But the other idea is that the tomb was empty because he survived the Crucifixion and was spirited away by Joseph of Arimathea to the Buddhist monastery at Hemis in Tibet, where he was known and loved as 'our beloved St. Issa' during his 18 missing years.

This teaches that christians need to loose their flesh in order to be with god in spirit.

The friction between what Christians call 'spirit' and 'flesh' has long been a problem. This is duality at its worst. However, contrary to what your conclusion is, the doctrine also teaches that all bodies will be reunited with their souls on Judgement Day. Christianity really is a religion of the flesh. It is the flesh that will either enjoy pleasures beyond description in some far-away Heaven, or endless torment in a forgotten Hell at the hands of some horrific demon. This view reflects the child stage of religion.

 

[Deeje]

Normal humans don't have a supernatural god as a father and do not get up out of the grave and cheat death.

Now that is just plain funny! You just accused most of the world's population of not being "normal".

Since time immemorial, humans have felt the need to worship a power higher than themselves. Not until the later centuries did humans begin to cast off the shackles that religion (not God) imposed and experiment with godlessness. None of that worked for the good of humanity....in fact inhumanity was often the result. When humans have no higher power than themselves, they begin to worship themselves and materialism becomes their religion.....we can all see where that has led. Humans need a higher power to keep them humble.....who loves prideful and arrogant despots?

As for cheating death? We have eyewitness testimony to the resurrections that took place in the first century. The Creator can create life, take life and restore life....that is why he is the Creator. You don't have to believe in him, but it doesn't make him disappear. He can make you disappear though.....you do realize that?

If the death was not real and permanent, it was not a valid sacrifice. Besides, what kind of god demands human sacrifices to appease his hurt feelings?

It wasn't the permanence of the death, but the payment of the ransom that mattered. Christ's death is what released us from the endless cycle of sin and death left to us by Adam. The prospect of a resurrection did not negate the suffering he had to endure before his death. I hope you understand what he went through....the mock trial, Pilate finding him not guilty, but handing him over for execution in typical Roman fashion. His own people crying out for his execution and threatening to report Pilate for sedition....but not content to just hand him over, Pilate had him flogged, which was done with a flagellum....designed to tear the flesh and inflict much pain and suffering.

He also has a crown of thorns shoved down on his head.

He was arrested in the darkness and tormented all night, having no rest....suffering and exhausted he could not even carry his own execution stake to Calvary.

And as if that wasn't enough, he was impaled in a way that also inflicted great pain, having nails driven through his hands and feet and being hoisted up to hang there until death overtook him. There was a piece of wood upon which the victim could put his feet, adding to the prolonging of the agony. The way they were hung was designed to make the lungs collapse, so the victims would push up with their feet to inflate their lungs to breathe. With every breath, the agony continued. After a time, the Romans would break their legs so that they could no longer push up to take a breath and they suffocated.

The two men hung alongside Jesus had their legs broken, but when they came to break Jesus' legs, they discovered that he was already dead. It was prophesied that not a bone in his body would be broken, and that his body would not suffer decay in the tomb. Both of which were fulfilled.

Your comments betray a gross lack of appreciation for what Jesus actually did for the benefit of humankind. It had nothing to do with "God's hurt feelings" but everything to do with his laws, which he abides by himself. The law on redemption explains why Jesus had to be a redeemer. Look it up.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The two are inexticably tied together as one event:

I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat is planted in the soil and dies, it remains alone. But its death will produce many new kernels--a plentiful harvest of new lives.
John 12:24

In other words, the focus isn't on jesus dying. Jesus does not die. It's about his dying in the flesh and specifically his resurrection.

Death in that scripture and other scriptures is not spiritual death it's physical death-it's sin. When you die to sin, you are born again to a new life. Jesus had no sin, so how could he die in any other way but by flesh?

No one knows that for certain. It is only assumed that he died and was 'resurrected'. But the other idea is that the tomb was empty because he survived the Crucifixion and was spirited away by Joseph of Arimathea to the Buddhist monastery at Hemis in Tibet, where he was known and loved as 'our beloved St. Issa' during his 18 missing years.

Shrugs. I just go by what I read in scripture. I really don't put personal investment in knowing the details or deep meaning behind it. Mainstream Christianity does say he was resurrected. Though unfortunately not all denominations agree.

The friction between what Christians call 'spirit' and 'flesh' has long been a problem. This is duality at its worst. However, contrary to what your conclusion is, the doctrine also teaches that all bodies will be reunited with their souls on Judgement Day. Christianity really is a religion of the flesh. It is the flesh that will either enjoy pleasures beyond description in some far-away Heaven, or endless torment in a forgotten Hell at the hands of some horrific demon. This view reflects the child stage of religion.

I haven't heard of that "christianity is a religion of the flesh." You'd have to give me some more context.

"For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want." ~Galations 5:17

When Peter, I think, said "I am crucified in christ," he meant crucified of his flesh/sin "I am no longer I (flesh/person) but christ who lives in me; insofar in him that I may live" because flesh/sin can't live around christ (pretending christ is god), not for myself (flesh), but for the son of god" (rough translation from memory).

"11 And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit, who dwells within you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation, but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.…" ~Romans 8:11-13

But I do hear arguments whether jesus rose with his body or just in spirit. I'd say his body did what all our bodies do, turn to ashes and our spirits live on. Where they live depends on the belief system; but, all believes I know of say flesh is a barrier to enlightenment (flesh being disillusioned mind), salvation (flesh being sin), and so forth.

 

[godnotgod]

" Paul, not Jesus, was the founder of Christianity as a new religion which developed away from both normal Judaism and the Nazarene variety of Judaism. In this new religion, the Torah was abrogated as having had only temporary validity. The central myth of the new religion was that of an atoning death of a divine being. Belief in this sacrifice, and a mystical sharing of the death of the deity, formed the only path to salvation. Paul derived this religion from Hellenistic sources, chiefly by a fusion of concepts taken from Gnosticism and concepts taken from the mystery religions, particularly from that of Attis. The combination of these elements with features derived from Judaism, particularly the incorporation of the Jewish scriptures, reinterpreted to provide a background of sacred history for the new myth, was unique; and Paul alone was the creator of this amalgam. Jesus himself had no idea of it, and would have been amazed and shocked at the role assigned to him by Paul as a suffering deity. Nor did Paul have any predecessors among the Nazarenes though later mythography tried to assign this role to Stephen, and modern scholars have discovered equally mythical predecessors for Paul in a group called the 'Hellenists'. Paul, as the personal begetter of the Christian myth, has never been given sufficient credit for his originality. The reverence paid through the centuries to the greatSaint Paul has quite obscured the more colourful features of his personality. Like many evangelical leaders, he was a compound of sincerity and charlatanry. Evangelical leaders of his kind were common at this time in the Greco-Roman world (e.g. Simon Magus, Apollonius of Tyana)."

The Problem of Paul

 

[godnotgod]

In other words, the focus isn't on jesus dying. Jesus does not die. It's about his dying in the flesh and specifically his resurrection.

Death in that scripture and other scriptures is not spiritual death it's physical death-it's sin. When you die to sin, you are born again to a new life. Jesus had no sin, so how could he die in any other way but by flesh?



Shrugs. I just go by what I read in scripture. I really don't put personal investment in knowing the details or deep meaning behind it. Mainstream Christianity does say he was resurrected. Though unfortunately not all denominations agree.



I haven't heard of that "christianity is a religion of the flesh." You'd have to give me some more context.

"For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want." ~Galations 5:17

When Peter, I think, said "I am crucified in christ," he meant crucified of his flesh/sin "I am no longer I (flesh/person) but christ who lives in me; insofar in him that I may live" because flesh/sin can't live around christ (pretending christ is god), "for the son of god" (rough translation from memory).

"11 And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead lives in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit, who dwells within you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation, but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.…" ~Romans 8:11-13

But I do hear arguments whether jesus rose with his body or just in spirit. I'd say his body did what all our bodies do, turn to ashes and our spirits live on. Where they live depends on the belief system; but, all believes I know of say flesh is a barrier to enlightenment (flesh being disillusioned mind), salvation (flesh being sin), and so forth.

Again, a polarized view of the two elements portrayed as being in opposition to one another, probably having its source in the Gnostics, who believed that the body was like old clothing that had to be discarded. In reality, the two are actually one and the same experience, the split only existing as real in the mind.

I say that 'Christianity is a religion of the flesh' for the simple fact that the final doctrine is that of all of the dead being re-united with their souls and then relegated to their appropriate reward or punishment.

Life and death are one and the same reality. In the Christian doctrine, Jesus had to die so that life can be renewed. You cannot have one without the other. But the real question here is how does the shedding of divine blood wash sin away? It's just a pagan belief with no grounds to support it.

 

[neologist]

It amazes me how the prophetic significance of Abram and Isaac is ignored.

- It underscores the separate identities of God and his Son.
- Consider the anguish any father would experience over witnessing his child suffer a humiliating and painful death.
- Consider the great love Jesus must have for mankind to endure such treatment.
- Read Proverbs , chapter 8 for enlightenment.

As for the mechanics of the ransom - Adam was perfect. Only a perfect human could take his place. No doubt any angel would have willingly suffered as Jesus did. But Satan's challenge could be satisfied only by the very highest. That explains why the Hebrews were required to offer their best in the many prophetic sacrifices they presented prior to Jesus' death.

 

[rstrats]

neologist,
re: "Consider the great love Jesus must have for mankind to endure such treatment."



But as I mentioned earlier, Mark 14:36 seems to suggest that it wasn't love for mankind, but rather love for His Father; " And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt."

 

[Etritonakin]

If you don't lose anything then you sacrificed nothing.

If God is an all-powerful being, and Jesus is God then he sacrificed nothing on the cross.

If Jesus was just a normal human then he sacrificed everything for us.

It accomplished what it was supposed to accomplish.

Whether you believe he gave anything of himself or not (time, concern, actually suffering for our sake), what he did made it possible for all of our suffering to be nullified.

Whether Christ will be permanently damaged by his experience is not as important as the fact that his experience made it possible for the damage caused by our experience to be non-permanent.

Without getting into the particulars, every last negative effect of this time will be corrected, made far better than could otherwise be, and the present suffering will eventually no longer come to mind.

The events of this time are necessary to create the future -rather, to create beings who will not allow such events to be repeated in the future -but any negative effects will be healed.

Christ's sacrifice is in no way insignificant, and the fact that all things will be made new in the future -that all hurt will be healed -makes it even more significant.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's like someone giving you a 20 dollar bill without you asking for it, then snatching it back from you 3 days later, then stating that you owe them a foot massage everyday for the rest of your life for the $20 that you never asked for, and that they took back anyway, then threatening to douse you with gasoline and set you ablaze if you don't give them foot massages.

It's a protection racket.

 

[wicketkeeper]

If you don't lose anything then you sacrificed nothing.

If God is an all-powerful being, and Jesus is God then he sacrificed nothing on the cross.

If Jesus was just a normal human then he sacrificed everything for us.

For me, Jesus represents the lower self(egoic mind), and his 'sacrifice' on the cross represents the death of the ego. His 'sacrifice' shows us what we need to do - 'kill' the lower self and by doing this the result is the Higher Self(Father/God) becomes flesh.

Easier said than done ! Our lower self(egoic mind) has many layers and to shed the toxins may take many lifetimes.

Anyway, thats my take.

Happy Sunday to y'all.

 

[wicketkeeper]

Can I ask you what you think "hell" is?

Deeje, sorry to intrude, but heaven & hell are states of being.

My mother was an alcoholic and was often in hell ! I have a friend who is a heavy drug user and he has been told never to get in touch with his family. He ripped most of his family off including his parents. He was a mess, and well, probably still is. I hope he changes, only he can do that though.

 

[godnotgod]

Happy Sunday to y'all.[/QUOTE]

Jesus represents the lower self(egoic mind), and his 'sacrifice' on the cross represents the death of the ego. His 'sacrifice' shows us what we need to do - 'kill' the lower self and by doing this the result is the Higher Self(Father/God) becomes flesh.

I want to know one thing: is this 'lower self' you equate with ego, real, and what is it's source?