If Jesus was a sacrifice...

[Kolibri]

Besides the temporary emotional trauma there wouldn't be any.

The whole thing gets muddled if one does not define exactly what Adam did and did not lose when he sinned. You can not equate the ransom to an exact value without defining exactly what was lost.

 

[Yes]

Is Jesus back to being the Word of God that was God in the beginning. Or is he ever to be a resurrected human being.

Jesus has the same glory he had with God in the beginning

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

 

[Yes]

Is Jesus back to being the Word of God that was God in the beginning. Or is he ever to be a resurrected human being.

Jesus was the Word of God before coming to earth, and he was the Word of God while on earth, and he is still the Word of God.

 

[McBell]

Jesus was the Word of God before coming to earth, and he was the Word of God while on earth, and he is still the Word of God.

So where is the "sacrifice"?

 

[Sonofason]

Jesus has the same glory he had with God in the beginning

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

Great verse, thanks for reminding me of it.
Here we see Jesus asking to be glorified by God's presence with the same Glory that He had when He was God before the world began.
Why not just glorify himself, if he is God?

 

[Yes]

So where is the "sacrifice"?

Jesus gave up his heavenly throne to come as a Son of God to die on a cross.

 

[Yes]

Great verse, thanks for reminding me of it.
Here we see Jesus asking to be glorified by God's presence with the same Glory that He had when He was God before the world began.
Why not just glorify himself, if he is God?

There must have been limits to being in the flesh.
However, after Jesus died on the cross, he in his Spirit raised himself from the dead.

 

[McBell]

Jesus gave up his heavenly throne to come as a Son of God to die on a cross.

that was BEFORE he was "sacrificed" on the cross.

What was the "sacrifice" that required the cross?

 

[Faybull]

ALL the OLD SACRIFICE LAWS were about JESUS.
They were a teaching tool.
They were a shadow of what was coming, Jesus Christ.
God made the plan for salvation to be through Jesus, even before the world was created.

Go, learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.

 

[Kolibri]

that was BEFORE he was "sacrificed" on the cross.

What was the "sacrifice" that required the cross?

Christ's loss of perfect human life and the use of the torture stake provided a release from 2 separate curses.

1. giving up his human life that was the exact equal in value to Adam's freed mankind from the curse of never being able to be declared righteous. This opens up the opportunity for the human race to be rehabilitated as the penalty for sin has been paid in full and exact measure. (Never again will Jesus live as a human; he forever forfeited that right.)

2. being hung on a stake specifically freed the Jews from the obligation to keep a Law that came with a very stiff curse. (De 21:22,23) By becoming a curse for them, they are now legally free from the curse first mentioned at De 11:26-32 and spelled out in full at De 28:15-68

 

[Yes]

Go, learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.

You are the one who does not know what it means.

You think that God commanding circumcision, various external washings, the dietary laws, the observance of special days, the sacrifice of animals...you think that God made all the commands for what? They were a teaching tool about JESUS.

Circumcision is now nothing. The observance of special days is now nothing. Various external washings are now nothing. The sacrifice of animals is now nothing.

Jesus came to show us the way. He came to be the Sacrificial Lamb of God. He came to take away our sins. He came to make us clean.

 

[Yes]

that was BEFORE he was "sacrificed" on the cross.

What was the "sacrifice" that required the cross?

Do you know about the old law and the sacrificing of animals?

They were teaching tools about what was coming, Jesus Christ.

The Greatest Love came and gave up his life for us.


John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.

 

[Kolibri]

Go, learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.

You quote Mt 9:13, and 12:7, where Jesus equated sacrifice with those declaring themselves righteous, and mercy (or "undeserved kindness") with those fully accepting that they are sinners.

These scriptures are rounded out by Pr 21:3 and Ho 6:6

"To do what is right and just Is more pleasing than a sacrifice." - Pr 21:3
"For in loyal love (or "in mercy.") I delighted, not in sacrifice, And in the knowledge of God, rather than the whole burnt offerings." - Ho 6:6

Could also reference 1Sa 15:22 and Mic 6:6-8.

Jesus was teaching the same thing as Paul, "live by undeserved kindness, yet do not miss it's purpose." Sacrifices are still valuable, as long as they are the ones that are currently pleasing to Jehovah, and sacrifices w/o mercy are something Jehovah has "had enough" of. (Isa 1:11)

 

[Faybull]

You are the one who does not know what it means.

You think that God commanding circumcision, various external washings, the dietary laws, the observance of special days, the sacrifice of animals...you think that God made all the commands for what? They were a teaching tool about JESUS.

Circumcision is now nothing. The observance of special days is now nothing. Various external washings are now nothing. The sacrifice of animals is now nothing.

Jesus came to show us the way. He came to be the Sacrificial Lamb of God. He came to take away our sins. He came to make us clean.

Are you being serious? I can't tell. Go, learn what this means: I desire mercy, not sacrifice.

 

[Robert.Evans]

What do you mean by saying, "The inner part is pure, but if he has been without..."?

Jesus was holy inside and outside.

I can sort of agree with you...but, flesh cannot enter the kingdom of God. So at a deeper level of thinking, he could not be like the inner part of himself, and it is that part that matters. The spirit is life, the flesh counts for nothing.

Everything comes from a Source, a simple idea of God (if you like). Everything after that (in the Image) must therefore be different. Just like a picture copied is not the original, so the Image would not be the original, even though in one sense it was. (haha). Platonism and Pantheism type ideas covers these things I think. The Gnostics thought that he had to be released by that which held him (his body).

So there are different kinds of pure, or different levels. I can agree with you, but not completely. He could not have been here if so. Even a king can travel in a old carriage. That would be his body.

 

[Robert.Evans]

There must have been limits to being in the flesh.
However, after Jesus died on the cross, he in his Spirit raised himself from the dead.

The Father raised him. (Acts)

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

I can sort of agree with you...but, flesh cannot enter the kingdom of God. So at a deeper level of thinking, he could not be like the inner part of himself, and it is that part that matters. The spirit is life, the flesh counts for nothing.

Everything comes from a Source, a simple idea of God (if you like). Everything after that (in the Image) must therefore be different. Just like a picture copied is not the original, so the Image would not be the original, even though in one sense it was. (haha). Platonism and Pantheism type ideas covers these things I think. The Gnostics thought that he had to be released by that which held him (his body).

So there are different kinds of pure, or different levels. I can agree with you, but not completely. He could not have been here if so. Even a king can travel in a old carriage. That would be his body.

LOL. But what a curious name for an English gentleman? I have known quite a few English called Evans. But are you really called Evans, and not by some other name? How about Robert Cabot, or Robert Lowell? Or Robert Brahmin?

 

[Robert.Evans]

LOL. But what a curious name for an English gentleman? I have known quite a few English called Evans. But are you really called Evans, and not by some other name? How about Robert Cabot, or Robert Lowell? Or Robert Brahmin?

Why 'Brahmin'?

 

[Apocalypse-Now]

Why 'Brahmin'?

A spiritually enlightened person who has more merit than demerit due to the cumulative result of his thoughts, words, and deed in the antecedent.

The word 'Brahmin' is not in common usuage in the British Isles; but such a terminology is peculiar to the Social Upper-class in India and Northeastern America.

By and large, such people are born into wealth and privilege and power; and being financially secure, they tend to live comfortable lives, which is supposedly their reward for leading exemplary lives in the antecedent.

Footnote:- However, unlike the Brahmin caste in India and Social Upper-class in New England, I reject the assumption that all people will have innate potential to be Brahmin; and reject the assumption that such status is simply a result of evolution and performing good deeds.

Rather than assume such an egalitarian perspective, I believe that God created different types of people in terms of their innate social potential (i.e. class/caste), so that some people have innate potential to be Brahmin; but not all people have such innate potential.

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby is known to have said that "equality is a myth because it's a fact, people are not equal since they have different abilities; although we can still treat everybody as though they were equal".

Therefore, only a few would have innate potential to develop their phenotype to make themselves preppy e.g., Famous actors, such as Roger Moore, Timothy Dalton, Michael York, Ian McKellen, Ian McDiarmid, and Peter O'Toole etc. are not from traditional English background, but they still have innate potential to make themselves look like English gentlemen.

So I take Justin Welby's approach to be a traditional Christian viewpoint on the social class system in Europe and N. America. Social inequality and the class system reflect God's invisible attributes, and thereby social stratification will have God's approval. (Romans 1:20, 13).

 

[wizanda]

The idea that he was sacrificed to God is Balaam teachings; God has never required sacrifice.