It's said Jesus' sacrificed himself to save us...

[Domenic]

Quatermass, you asked, "So where the hell is the sacrifice?"

That is a very good question. I used to ask the same question. The only reply I would get from religious leaders was..."Jesus died for our sins." After that I used to ask the question, "If Jesus died for our sins, why do we have to keep asking God to forgive us for our sins?" It was like talking to used car salesmen. So I started to reason it on my own...it took me some time...about ten years. Here is what I came away with:

Adam was a perfect man when he sinned. The sacrifice had to also be perfect. Jesus was perfect, without sin. Fair exchange...but than like you asked, "Three days? That's all? Just three day...that's not a sacrifice." I looked at it the same as you. So I thought on the matter. There had to be more to the story. God never does something without a reason...what was his reason for Jesus being dead for only three days? Jesus was a perfect man. if he was not killed, he would not have aged, or died. If he had children, they would also have been perfect...Jesus had within him a perfect unborn human race. Here is a medical fact I learned. "It takes up to three days for a mans seed to die, after the man dies. Jesus was dead for 2.5 days. The Jews count a half day as a full day."
When Jesus died, a perfect unborn human race was given as a sacrifice for this one.
I have often wondered what they would have been like...that unborn race. Over the years I sometimes feel shame they died for me. I see faces of unborn children laughing, playing...children who have done no wrong, but will never be born. Jesus died for one sin, to remove the sin handed down from Adam and Eve...The payment was those billions of unborn people. I hope someday we prove we were worth it.

 

[truthofscripture]

One reason I'm glad I'm not Christian, is the confusing nature of divinity in Christianity.

Confusing does not necessarily mean bad of course.

There is no confusion in Christianity, there IS in Christendom.

 

[Smart_Guy]

There is no confusion in Christianity, there IS in Christendom.

I understand

 

[JayJayDee]

Ok, I understand that that is your POV and your belief. It's not mine, nor quite a large number of people who follow other faiths, however. Quoting the bible, while important for you, means very little to me as, IMO, the bible was written by men, not God. I hope you can see the difference in that.

Actually I don't believe that God "wrote" the Bible either. It was written by men, but I believe that the message was inspired by God. That means that the words were chosen by men but the thoughts were God's. If it was dictated, then all four gospels would be word for word, but even though their accounts are similar, some include details the others leave out. Put all four together and we get a more rounded out picture.

You are free to believe or disbelieve whatever you wish....as we all are. The Bible's message is for all, but God forces himself on no one....neither did Jesus. We can choose to accept the message or reject it. Choices have consequences and the Bible outlines what they are. Simple.

 

[JayJayDee]

Quatermass, you asked, "So where the hell is the sacrifice?"

That is a very good question. I used to ask the same question. The only reply I would get from religious leaders was..."Jesus died for our sins." After that I used to ask the question, "If Jesus died for our sins, why do we have to keep asking God to forgive us for our sins?" It was like talking to used car salesmen. So I started to reason it on my own...it took me some time...about ten years. Here is what I came away with:

Adam was a perfect man when he sinned. The sacrifice had to also be perfect. Jesus was perfect, without sin. Fair exchange...but than like you asked, "Three days? That's all? Just three day...that's not a sacrifice." I looked at it the same as you. So I thought on the matter. There had to be more to the story. God never does something without a reason...what was his reason for Jesus being dead for only three days? Jesus was a perfect man. if he was not killed, he would not have aged, or died. If he had children, they would also have been perfect...Jesus had within him a perfect unborn human race. Here is a medical fact I learned. "It takes up to three days for a mans seed to die, after the man dies. Jesus was dead for 2.5 days. The Jews count a half day as a full day."
When Jesus died, a perfect unborn human race was given as a sacrifice for this one.
I have often wondered what they would have been like...that unborn race. Over the years I sometimes feel shame they died for me. I see faces of unborn children laughing, playing...children who have done no wrong, but will never be born. Jesus died for one sin, to remove the sin handed down from Adam and Eve...The payment was those billions of unborn people. I hope someday we prove we were worth it.

That is a very interesting way to view things Domenic. I have a bit of a different view. Since God told Adam and his wife to "be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it" God allowed them to fulfill part of that mandate. They did indeed fill the earth with their "kind". All were children of Adam and all inherited the defect of sin....imperfection. (Rom 5:12) They did not get to "subdue" the earth however, which would have meant transforming the earth outside the garden into paradise conditions.

In order for God's perfect law to be carried out....."eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and a life for a life".....an equivalent life had to be offered in exchange for Adam's perfect life that he lost, not only for himself, but for all his children. No perfect life could be found on earth because all of Adam's descendants were now imperfect. God sent his sinless son from heaven to earth to become a perfect exchange in atonement for Adam's sin, carrying out God's perfect justice.
He was never going to have children....that was not his purpose in coming.

I don't know where you get the idea of an unborn race from Jesus, because it isn't from the Bible.
The reason for the three days in the tomb is not stated, so it is open to conjecture.

Jesus' friend Lazarus was dead for four days and Jesus raised him.

Some asked Jesus for a sign that he was Messiah, but he said that they would get no other sign except "the sign of Jonah". Just as Jonah was in the belly of the fish, so Jesus would be "in the heart of the earth for three days and nights."

Perhaps it was because of the prophesy that his body would not be left in the tomb to decay. (Acts 2:27) When Lazarus had been dead four days, his sister said he would be decomposing. (John 11:39)

Whatever the reason, Jesus was raised from the dead just as it was foretold, and his disciples saw him....not in the body he sacrificed, but in various bodies that he materialized in order to prove that he was raised and to strengthen them for the work ahead.

 

[sojourner]

The whole concept of animal or human sacrifice for the remission of sin is pagan mythology that goes back to the dawn of time. The only path to overcome our moral failings is repentance which is what both Jesus and John the Baptizer taught from the beginning of their missions. And at least animal sacrifices have some worth, you can eat them.

Which was what usually happened. What people forget is that 1) the gospel writers were writing after the fact, so they had to come up with some kind of meaning for the crucifixion, and 2) they were using imagery that the people could grasp and understand. It doesn't necessarily (or even positively) translate that the crucifixion was some sort of supernatural "part of God's 'plan' for salvation."

 

[sojourner]

One reason I'm glad I'm not Christian, is the confusing nature of divinity in Christianity.

Confusing does not necessarily mean bad of course.

Well, yeah, because in the very beginning, the biblical writers drew a pretty heavy line in the sand that could not be crossed between divinity and humanity. Humanity tried to cross that line in the garden, and were expelled. Humanity tried to cross that line on the plain of Shiner, and they were dispersed and their language confused. But when Jesus shows up on the scene, he blurs that distinction, and we become children instead of slaves -- heirs of Divinity.

 

[sojourner]

It does if it's just masking the fact that the whole setup is a phoney piece of manipulation.

A particular theological position =/= "phony manipulation."

 

[sojourner]

Yes, but the odds are stacked enormously and forever in my favor--near infinite to zero.

Only if you misunderstand the theological framework of the religion.

 

[sojourner]

That means that the words were chosen by men but the thoughts were God's.

No it doesn't. "Inspired" means that their thoughts were quickened by the Holy Spirit -- not that alien thoughts somehow magically filtered into their heads.

Put all four together and we get a more rounded out picture.

Put all four together and we end up with "mush gospel." Each gospel is a thorough, stand-alone, theological story -- not a news story or history lesson about Jesus' life. The "more rounded out picture" comes when we consider each story on its own merits, and then construct a theological "quilt" using each complete gospel as a piece of the larger quilt. When we try to "reconstruct" some kind of contrived, bogus "timeline" of Jesus' life by piecemealing the gospels, we lose the theological sense and integrity of each one.

 

[sojourner]

I have a bit of a different view. Since God told Adam and his wife to "be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it" God allowed them to fulfill part of that mandate. They did indeed fill the earth with their "kind". All were children of Adam and all inherited the defect of sin....imperfection. (Rom 5:12) They did not get to "subdue" the earth however, which would have meant transforming the earth outside the garden into paradise conditions.

Your view is patently different than the one the writers had in mind.

In order for God's perfect law to be carried out....."eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth and a life for a life".....an equivalent life had to be offered in exchange for Adam's perfect life that he lost, not only for himself, but for all his children. No perfect life could be found on earth because all of Adam's descendants were now imperfect. God sent his sinless son from heaven to earth to become a perfect exchange in atonement for Adam's sin, carrying out God's perfect justice.

Medieval hogwash. The ancients who wrote the texts didn't think that way. At all.

Whatever the reason, Jesus was raised from the dead just as it was foretold, and his disciples saw him....not in the body he sacrificed, but in various bodies that he materialized in order to prove that he was raised and to strengthen them for the work ahead.

That's certainly not Paul's view of resurrection. Paul thought that Jesus was bodily raised. In fact, the Greek terms he uses simply does not carry the theological baggage that the term "resurrection" carries. The Greek terms Paul uses mean simply, "getting up," or "standing up," such as one does when one gets out of bed in the morning. No, for Paul, resurrection is most certainly bodily.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Which was what usually happened. What people forget is that 1) the gospel writers were writing after the fact, so they had to come up with some kind of meaning for the crucifixion, and 2) they were using imagery that the people could grasp and understand. It doesn't necessarily (or even positively) translate that the crucifixion was some sort of supernatural "part of God's 'plan' for salvation."

You're preaching to the choir.

A particular theological position =/= "phony manipulation."

That particular theological position would be a phoney theological position which would include all of them that require revelation/miracles.

Only if you misunderstand the theological framework of the religion.

Which I have down pat.

 

[sojourner]

You're preaching to the choir.

Sometimes the preacher preaches to the choir to emphasize a point to the congregation who's too busy with their noses in their smart phones, reading useless information on religious propaganda sites, when they should be paying attention to what's being said from the pulpit.

That particular theological position would be a phoney theological position which would include all of them that require revelation/miracles.

What "particular position" are you referring to?

Which I have down pat.

Not unless I'm missing something in your post -- which is likely. Care to lay out what you think is "phony manipulation?"

 

[sojourner]

Adam was a perfect man when he sinned.

No, Adam was never "perfect." Adam was created "very good," not "perfect." Where was the sin in Genesis? There was no punishment -- merely consequences for becoming wise and taking responsibility for oneself.

The sacrifice had to also be perfect. Jesus was perfect, without sin. Fair exchange

A death sentence is never "fair." Substitutionary Atonement is a relatively new concept in Xy -- not one that is shared by the biblical writers.

When Jesus died, a perfect unborn human race was given as a sacrifice for this one.
I have often wondered what they would have been like...that unborn race. Over the years I sometimes feel shame they died for me. I see faces of unborn children laughing, playing...children who have done no wrong, but will never be born. Jesus died for one sin, to remove the sin handed down from Adam and Eve...The payment was those billions of unborn people. I hope someday we prove we were worth it.

This is the kind of "Children of the Corn" nonsense one dreams up when one spends too much time reading biased perspectives into the biblical texts.

 

[Domenic]

No, Adam was never "perfect." Adam was eecreated "very good," not "perfect." Where was the sin in Genesis? There was no punishment -- merely consequences for becoming wise and taking responsibility for oneself.

A death sentence is never "fair." Substitutionary Atonement is a relatively new concept in Xy -- not one that is shared by the biblical writers.

This is the kind of "Children of the Corn" nonsense one dreams up when one spends too much time reading biased perspectives into the biblical texts.

sojourner,
Do you believe anything in the bible? Adam was created in Gods image. Do you believe God created Adam other than perfect? If so, what scripture do you base that theory on? Do you believe there is a God, and that he had men write the scrolls? I am not asking if God had men write the book we call the bible.
I am asking if you believe God had men write the scrolls. If not, what do you base all your comments on?

 

[sojourner]

Do you believe anything in the bible?

I believe the bible says what it says -- not what we want it to say.

Adam was created in Gods image.

No, God created humanity in God's image -- male and female. "Image" =/= "God's perfection."

Do you believe God created Adam other than perfect?

Yes. God created humanity "very good."

If so, what scripture do you base that theory on?

Gen. 1:31. To wit: "God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."
"Perfect Does. Not. Appear in the text.

Do you believe there is a God, and that he had men write the scrolls?

I believe people heard stories and myths, passed down orally from other cultures, and that, eventually, the stories were adapted to local belief, matured into specific religious beliefs, and eventually those stories written down by people, edited and redacted, and later catalogued into scroll form. God had little to do with that process, save providing the inspiration for those jobs to be carried out.

I am asking if you believe God had men write the scrolls.

No. The texts were not some cosmic "work order."

If not, what do you base all your comments on?

I base them on a simple, scholastically-honest exegesis of the texts.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Sometimes the preacher preaches to the choir to emphasize a point to the congregation who's too busy with their noses in their smart phones, reading useless information on religious propaganda sites, when they should be paying attention to what's being said from the pulpit.

Or being sung by the rocks and stones in the garden outside.

What "particular position" are you referring to?

The position that a religion is "the" religion based on its particularly authoritative revelations.

Not unless I'm missing something in your post -- which is likely. Care to lay out what you think is "phony manipulation?"

Hell (fear), Heaven (reward), hearsay (phoney/manufactured authority via revelation, supernatural mythological events).

 

[sojourner]

Or being sung by the rocks and stones in the garden outside.

Ha! I like that. Thanks!

The position that a religion is "the" religion based on its particularly authoritative revelations.

Ok. Thanks. I missed that part -- and you're right. There's absolutely no place in any of Xy for this "My dog's better than your dog" crap.

Hell (fear), Heaven (reward), hearsay (phoney/manufactured authority via revelation, supernatural mythological events)

Great. I think we're on the same page. Sorry for the mixup...

 

[outhouse]

Adam was created in Gods image

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

Do you believe God created Adam other than perfect?

No

I think that is all 100% theology written in mythological prose.

Do you believe there is a God, and that he had men write the scrolls?

No, why would I? what good reason is there?

If not, what do you base all your comments on?

Facts and evidence that shows ancient people used mythology writing theology.

 

[Domenic]

Unsubstantiated rhetoric.

No

I think that is all 100% theology written in mythological prose.

No, why would I? what good reason is there?

Facts and evidence that shows ancient people used mythology writing theology.

The reason Christians talk to non-Christians who will listen is: When a Christian talks about the scriptures to non-Christians, that is when God reads the heart of the non-Christian.
When people read the scriptures, and do not believe them, it is because God has blinded them to the truth. There is nothing anybody can say, or do that will un-blind them.